In accordance with notice to members of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council’s Ocean Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) subcommittee, a meeting of the subcommittee was held on Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 4 p.m. at the University of Rhode Island (URI) Bay Campus Coastal Institute large conference room in Narragansett, R.I.

MEMBERS PRESENT
Michael M. Tikoian, Chairman
Paul Lemont
Don Gomez

STAFF PRESENT
Grover Fugate, CRMC Executive Director
Laura Ricketson-Dwyer, CRMC Public Educator and Information Coordinator
Brian Goldman, CRMC Legal Counsel

OTHERS PRESENT
Tiffany Smythe, URI CRC

Call to order.  M. Tikoian called the meeting to order at 4:08 p.m.

Item 1. Review and approval of modifications to the Ocean Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) as requested by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): M. Tikoian suggested a review of the proposed changes. G. Fugate said that before the October 19 meeting of the Council, NOAA had suggested changes to the document to prepare it for adoption. G. Fugate and the SAMP team had a meeting with OCRM and David Kaiser went through federal consistency with all interested groups, he said. The team took his suggested changes and drafted them, then got Kaiser’s signoff on the changes, G. Fugate said. The document before the Subcommittee reflects those proposed wording changes. After the changes are approved, NOAA and D. Kaiser will sign off on the whole SAMP as a federal document, he said. G. Fugate said that while it might seem like a lot of changes, it’s because there’s similar language appearing in multiple chapters. The team also broke up the HAB and FAB to be enforceable and general policy components, G. Fugate said. The pre-application meeting is now a necessary requirement, making it enforceable policy. NOAA also asked for maps and other sites in terms of policies being in state water, and gave the SAMP team two choices: just focus on state water component; or show both state and federal water mapping, but specify it’s only for state waters (the team chose this second option). The team is working on the Geographic Location Description (GLD) now to trigger federal consistency out to 30 miles, G. Fugate said. First it’s needed for state waters – that’s what this document does – and then we can expand it. P. Lemont asked if CLF and other groups agreed with these proposed changes. G. Fugate said they have no objection. B. Goldman asked about the mechanics of getting these changes approved. G. Fugate said that once the Council approves it, the changes would be sent to RI Secretary of State and NOAA at the same time for formal adoption. NOAA is only concerned with the Council approving it, G. Fugate said. B. Goldman asked if NOAA would consider it a routine program change. G. Fugate said yes. B. Goldman asked how it would take once it goes to NOAA for the routine program change, and G. Fugate said that NOAA should adopt it within 60 days but they have up to 120 days. B. Goldman asked if the dredging issue would be included in these changes. G. Fugate said no; that the document with the changes was kept clean but the team did draft an amendment to go to the Council at a later date. G. Fugate explained that NY and CT were battling over disposal sites. Because of Long Island, New York been objecting to any disposal in LI Sound. Mystic River (a federal navigation project) has come up, and the USACE decided to take it to RI and felt they did not have to inform the state or request consistency. The CRMC brought the issue the issue to light with USACE and EPA, and they are now agreeing they have to seek federal consistency. P. Lemont asked if Connecticut would still going to try to dispose it here, and G. Fugate said yes, but we’re trying to beef up the Ocean SAMP to protect the Rhode Island disposal site. When the CRMC permitted that site, it was for a fixed limit, G. Fugate said. Once you take existing projects and add Weaver’s Cove, which would go there if approved, and possibly Quonset (which is looking to dredge), the site is filled, he said. This means if Connecticut gains access to our site and fills it before we can, it may result in RI fighting for a disposal site for our own material, G. Fugate said. So we’re trying to demonstrate use of the site for us and fisheries issues for federal consistency. P. Lemont asked for clarification on the location of site 69B being in state waters, and G. Fugate said it is in federal waters. P. Lemont asked how much material was in there now. G. Fugate said approximately 4-6 million cubic yards. G. Fugate said that when a study was done on the site’s capacity, if Connecticut had been part of it, it might have been different result. B. Goldman asked if the CRMC would be handling this dredging issue internally or with the assistance of URI to draft language. G. Fugate said that T. Smythe is working on it with Dan Goulet of CRMC. B. Goldman said he would assist T. Smythe in preparing language.

M. Tikoian asked if the budget had been settled and all the funds spent. G. Fugate said that RI Sea Grant has provided money and T. Smythe is a contract employee for a certain number of hours. G. Fugate added that the team has these changes and the GLD and to file with FERC and the SAMP will be completed. D. Gomez asked about continued funding for additional studies or changes in the future. B. Goldman said that any changes to the document would come out of P&P. M. Tikoian added that a new subcommittee was formed to handle future changes and that D. Gomez was chair. M. Tikoian asked about ongoing bird studies. G. Fugate said that those had been funded through ARRA.

M. Tikoian asked about references in the document that refer to the state; what would happen to all the money that was spent on federal water studies. G. Fugate explained that those studies frontloaded the federal BOEMRE process and would be incorporated into their regulatory document. They have to go through NEPA but the Ocean SAMP feeds studies into the EIS for leasing, G. Fugate said. The developer cannot go forward with studies until BOEMRE authorizes it. BOEMRE would establish a committee to look at the studies and fill in the gaps. If this were their normal process, they would do a scoping exercise on studies needed (this would take 9-12 months); then BOEMRE would approve the consultant to go forward, and in this case, DWW or other selected developers would fund all that but would need to wait for the federal signoff. Then DWW or other selected developers would do three years’ of study, G. Fugate said. What BOEMRE built in at our request was our Ocean SAMP into their process so they automatically approve potential developers going forward to the level of an EIS, so feeds directly into their process and skips the scoping exercise, G. Fugate explained. No one on the east coast has done this. M. Tikoian asked if it’s in writing anywhere. G. Fugate said that it’s in BOEMRE’s program. M. Tikoian asked for the Subcommittee to get those pages, and G. Fugate said yes. M. Tikoian asked if the federal program references the Ocean SAMP. G. Fugate said no, but the federal program references the data as being acceptable. M. Tikoian asked if B. Goldman had seen this, and B. Goldman said yes. M. Tikoian asked if all the maps were out of the Ocean SAMP document now. G. Fugate said that they had all been left in, with all of the language. M. Tikoian referenced page 25 of 27 of the proposed NOAA changes says that it’s not enforceable policy. G. Fugate said that it’s a nuance and that David Kaiser explained this to us - we will adopt this for state waters. The GLD will then show that there are activities that emanate from our coastal zone and if there’s a federal license that will impact, say, the fishing industry, and since it affects our coastal zone, we can have federal consistency authority, G. Fugate explained. So the maps are a demonstration of our boundary – the Ocean SAMP – and can transfer what we have through the federal consistency process to federal waters. First, the CRMC must make the linkage to the coastal zone before we make that leap, G. Fugate said. M. Tikoian asked if six months is a rule of consistency, and G. Fugate said yes. B. Goldman said that if the CRMC gets the GLD, we’ll have consistency review on that. If we want to deny consistency we have to make that link, B. Goldman asked. G. Fugate said no, that the GLD already makes that link. B. Goldman asked how the CRMC would deny. G. Fugate said that the CRMC would have to link it back to one of our inner Areas of Particular Concern (APC). If a developer wanted a wind farm to be put on a moraine in a federal area, we could say we prohibit moraine deposits and since it’s in fed waters, and you’re inconsistent with our program on moraines and we know there’s a moraine out there, we can prohibit it. B. Goldman said that if CRMC objects, the developer would have an appeal right to NOAA. G. Fugate said that the CRMC would have to show the area it’s exercising consistency over, demonstrate the impact (and fisheries gives us consistency in the entire area); ask for specific licenses or permits and say this permit will potentially impact this industry in the following ways (BOEMRE already did this on wind farm impacts, as did NMFS); then NOAA signs off on the GLD. B. Goldman asked if the CRMC would have to amend its consistency review for those types of permits. G. Fugate said that the GLD will do that, and that the team is trying to fashion it according to what D. Kaiser will sign off on. B. Goldman asked if the Subcommittee would see the GLD, and G. Fugate said yes and that it would be approved by the Subcommittee before it goes before NOAA. B. Goldman recommended the GLD be run it by the Council and made as a rule. G. Fugate said the CRMC isn’t asking NOAA for blanket consistency, so the Council can approve it, but we might be complicating things by making it a rule. P. Lemont makes a motion to approve the proposed changes; D. Gomez seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously.

P. Lemont makes a motion to adjourn; D. Gomez seconds the motion. The motion is approved unanimously.

Meeting is adjourned at 4:41 p.m.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

Laura Ricketson-Dwyer

CALENDAR INDEX