Mr. Gagnon recused himself.

Mr. Beutel gave brief overview of application stating that there will be three discreet artificial reef sites and that each site will be a 1⁄4 of an acre with a buffer of around each site making each site a 1⁄2 an acre. Mr. Beutel stated that the goal of project is for this to be research to assess and address the validity of the project and whether or not artificial reefs are a good idea in RI waters. Mr. Beutel stated the RIDEM will partner with the Nature Conservancy and involvement by the Salt Water Anglers Association to do the baseline research. Mr. Beutel stated that CRMC worked with RIDEM to make sure that the various sized reef balls stayed in place to provide vertical relief for different species of fish. Mr. Beutel stated that the Nature Conservancy will do the baseline research to see what fish inhabit the area prior to construction of the artificial reefs, the construction of the artificial reefs and then researching what settles after the reefs are constructed. Mr. Beutel explained that DEM would monitor the exploitation rates of the fish that will aggregate on the artificial reef.

The Council reviewed the plans of reefs in their agenda packets.

Mr. Beutel stated that the CRMC has received objections for this project from Jerry Carvalho of the RI Fishermen’s Alliance who represent commercial fishermen. Mr. Beutel stated that CRMC staff tried to address the concerns that were raised in their staff reports.

Mr. Beutel stated that CRMC staff recommended approval for this project; and confirmed that the only stipulation was to prevent movement of the artificial reefs through grouping. Mr. Beutel stated that input from John Grybowski from Northeastern University weighed in on the Mellville location stating that there would be no issues in terms of compromising the research project.

Vice Chair Lemont asked how long the reefs were proposed to be there and what the plan is if the event that the project fails? Mr. Beutel stated that the project was targeted for a three year period and that there was no anticipation of removal of the reefs.

Mr. Beaudette asked if other materials had been put in the bay and what was monitored from Jamestown Bridge artificial reef? Mr. Beutel stated that theoretically that project was supposed tobe monitored to but due to location it was not. Mr. Fugate stated that the placement of the bridge on the bottom did not give the vertical relief they were looking for. Mr. Beaudette stated he had reservations regarding putting things in place that will not be removed and asked why there were no plans to return the area to a natural state in the event the project is not successful? Mr. Fugate states that it is the expectation that the reef ball will colonize fish and that the research will be to look at the rate and attraction of species. Mr. Beaudette expressed concern that it would turn into a Gypsy Moth situation.

Chair Livingston asked if there would be restrictions in the area during the four years of research. Mr. Beutel stated that you can boat over it and never touch it.

Mr. Hudner stated that the abutting marina is too important to RI economic community and asked what the interaction will be with the marina that is permitted until November? Mr. Beutel stated that there will not be an issue or interaction with the marina.

Dr. Christopher Deacutis of RIDEM was sworn in and identified himself for the record. Dr. Deacutis brought small replica of the artificial reef explaining that it was made of cement. Dr. Deacutis stated that it is their intention to see if it possible to use this as a fishery management tool as both CRMC and DEM want to see what would be gained -- could it create high pressure for fishing? Dr. Deacutis stated that the artificial reef is supposed to provide an area for smaller fish to grow. Dr. Deacutis explained how the project would take place and explained that working within the bay provides an easier research monitoring situation as the water depth will only be 25-30 feet deep.

Mr. Fugate stated that there were a number of states that are looking into artificial reefs as an adaptation device to deal with moderate storms – acting as a device to break wave and wave runoff in areas.

Objectors – (each were sworn in and identified themselves for the record)

Ken Murgo, from Bristol, a commercial fisherman of Whelk, lobster and finfish stated his objections regarding artificial reef site selection especially sites two and three. Mr. Murgo asked that DEM work with the commercial fishermen and include them in the discussion of placement. Mr. Murgo was also concerned that the reef balls will sink in the soft sediment.

Jerry Carvahlo, Vice President of RI Fishermen’s Alliance, expressed his concerns for the project on behalf of his organization stating that they objected to the bay being changed to benefit one group over other groups. Mr. Carvalho stated that the applicant, RIDEM, should not be the applicant as they are supposed to be a neutral party to the project and represent all user groups.

Mr. Affigne raised his concern that the initial species research was not included with the application and felt that it was pertinent information for the Council to make their decision.

Mr. Beutel stated that, if the proposal is approved by the Council, the inventory will occur prior to placement of the reef balls.

Dr. Deacutis stated that the agency does not have the funding to research off shore and that the USFW service is funding the project after approvals are gained.

Mr. Affigne stated that with aquaculture projects the Council relies on the sworn testimony of people who work the waters and live in the area to provide informal data assessment. Dr. Deacutis stated that he would not have an objection to the Council requesting the removal of the reefs in the event that there shows evidence of an adverse effect.

Vice Chair Lemont asked if alternate sites were considered. Mr. Beutel stated that there were six sites submitted -- three primary and three alternates – and that they were all similar locations than the chosen ones providing a similar impact.

Objector:

Robert Morris a commercial fisherman from Bristol RI spoke about his concern for the introduction of an invasive weed, Desmaria marituous (phonetic – sp?), known as the burning weed and containing a large amount of sulfuric acid. Mr. Morris stated that the weed kills fish and wipes out healthy vegetation.

Dr. Deacutis stated that he was not a weed specialist and that many new species were coming in due to water temperature change; seaweed changes very significant. Dr Deacutis also answered Mr. Carvalho’s comment regarding why RIDEM is the applicant, stating that the USFW funding must go through a State agency. Dr. Deacutis also stated that gear restriction to minimize destruction is from a US FW stipulation for funding.

Mr. Gomez asked for Council discussion and so motioned to deny application for discussion purposes. Mr. Affigne seconded the motion for discussion purposes.

Chair Livingston expressed that the area was small and will provide much needed aquatic research, therefore she was in favor of approving the application with the stipulation that if negative effects found the applicant is obligated to remove at end of study period.

Mr. Gomez expressed his concern over the fishing industry and limiting fishing in certain areas, as well as concern for the marina operation. Mr. Gomez did not feel the area was right for the experiment.

Mr. Affigne asked that a map be made available for the Council that shows the areas that have been reserved for one exclusive us or another. Mr. Fugate stated that there is not a map of the State waters which allows one to see what areas are suitable for aquaculture project and what is already there. Mr. Affigne stated that his decision to vote against the project was because of testimony given stating adverse effects on the area.

Mr. Fugate asked the Council if they would consider given DEM the chance to work with all parties and come back with an alternative location. Mr. Affigne was fine with that suggestion.

Mr. Hudner was concerned that the project was being proposed in conflict of CRMC Section including 300.1 because funding had come available.

Mr. Beaudette agreed with Mr. Affigne that the application should have included the preliminary research information as to the site habitat prior to applying.

Chair Livingston asked for a motion withdrawal.

Mr. Gomez withdrew his motion and Mr. Affigne withdrew his second with assurances that the applicant with engage in processes that are suggested by staff and Council. With the motion and second withdrawn, Council sent application back for further work with Staff.

Mr. Beutel gave a brief overview of the aquaculture application to the Council stating that the applicant proposed to expand his current lease by three acres to explore different aquaculture methods. Mr. Beutel stated that barges will not be moored permanently as originally proposed. The Council reviewed the map of area showing the lease sites. Mr. Beutel stated that many objections were received during the review process citing visual impact of floating gear and rafts; fear of precedence setting in Type 1 waters. Mr. Beutel stated that he agreed with all the objections and that the CRMC staff recommendation was that the area proposed is acceptable for aquaculture but the methods proposed are unacceptable. Mr. Beutel reiterated that staff recommended approval for the lease area but denial for method and denial for work barge.

Chair Livingston inquired as to the percentage of aquaculture in the pond. Mr. Beutel stated that the percentage of the pond used by aquaculture was 1.9

The applicant, Jules Opton-Himmel was sworn in and identified himself for the record as the lease owner of Walrus and Carpenter. Mr. Opton-Himmel stated that aquaculture was an important issue to him and that he had been in the business for ten years. Mr. Opton-Himmel explained the benefits of aquaculture on the area; about floating gear being the future of RI aquaculture; and how the operation would work with the gear being 8 inches under the water so cannot be seen. Mr. Opton-Himmel stated that his goal was to be part of the community. Mr. Opton-Himmel respected Mr. Beutel’s decision to recommend removal of floating gear and asked that he get permission instead to dry out the cages overnight if necessary once a month.

Mr. Beutel thought that drying the cages once a month would work, but with so many cages, there would always be cages exposed.

Mr. Affigne asked about bird roosting concern brought up by RIDEM. Mr. Beutel stated that he did not feel it was a concern.

Objectors:

Charlestown Assistant Town Solicitor, David Petrarca, Esq., was present with witnesses who were sworn in and identified themselves for the record.

Tom Gentz, Charlestown Town Council President – read a statement of objection from Town Council.

Mr. Petrarca asked the Council if it made sense procedurally to have the application withdrawn and resubmitted with non-floating materials.

Steve McCandless, GIS Coordinator doing work for the Town of Charlestown, was qualified as an expert witness due to education and experience. Mr. Fugate vouched for Mr. McCandless as an expert witness in GIS mapping. Mr. McCandless provided photos for Exhibit marked Full 1-16 that he took of Trims Pond in Block Island of floating gear in an aquaculture site. Mr. McCandless submitted three more exhibits: a map showing aquaculture sites marked full Town 17, a blow up of actual lease with bathymetry along with tidal gauge marked Exhibit Town 18 full, and CRMC’s map of usage of the pond marked Exhibit Town 19 full. Mr. McCandless talked about the pond and the effect of the floating gear in the pond.
Mr. Sahagian asked Mr. McCandless if he was still opposed to the expansion of the lease if the cages and platform were removed from the application. Mr. McCandless stated that the view needs to be maintained and kept as it is currently.
Discussion on Block Island aquaculture site with Mr. Beutel. Ms. Livingston asked if a lease can be cancelled if not compliant. Mr. Goldman confirmed that it could.

Mr. McCandless testified that in his research he found that gear had been moved into the proposed lease area prior to obtaining permit and that he notified Mr. Beutel who notified the lease owner who then moved the gear.

Justin Vale, Harbor Master, Town of Charlestown read a prepared statement objecting to the operation expansion due to close proximity to designated mooring fields in regards to the platform and the ability to moor outside of mooring field. Mr. Vale expressed concern with stacking gear and the danger with moonlight kayaking. Mr. Vale was concerned that the gear would blow over in strong winds.

Mr. Beutel explained how other aquaculturists handled fouling problems with their gear. Mr. Affigne was concerned that stacking might set precedence. Mr. Beutel reiterated that his recommendation was for no stacking and to keep cages under water.

Rob Lyons, Chairman of Charlestown Coastal Pond Commission aka Harbor Commission, spoke about his support for aquaculture but in a responsible manner.

Richard Sartor of the Salt Pond Coalition also talked about their strong policy of supporting aquaculture in a responsible manner. Mr. Sartor talked of concerns expressed regarding the current lease in which the operation is not being properly operated, cages being stored on nature conservation areas, boats left on shore or moored overnight. Mr. Sartor talked about the drying cages for a day and how many days per month the cages would be visible when trying to dry 600 cages. Mr.

Sartor brought about concerns regarding town and state licensing for operation of food services, liquor sales to the public on Ninigret Conservation area without being sanctioned.

Mr. Fugate stated that CRMC does not permit the activities involving food/drink services. Mr. Fugate explained that the Town had approached the CRMC and that an MOU is being worked on.

Mr. Petrarca made a closing statement talking again about gear maintenance, stacking timeframe, procedural standpoint of resubmitting the application to amend, aesthetic value of area and asked the Council to either bring it back for further review or asked that it be denied as stands.

Louise Anderson Nicolosi a Ninigret Pond resident talked of her daily use of the water from April to November. Ms. Nicolosi stated that she believed there was already enough aquaculture in Ninigret Pond.

Mr. Opton-Himmel made a closing statement apologizing for his oversight in how he prepared his application and expressed an interest in working with the local municipality to have a better handle on use of the Ninigret Pond site. Mr. Opton Himmel addressed the NOV from CRMC and stated that he needed to clear the seaweed out of the area to save his oysters and that took two weeks.

Chair Livingston asked for a motion.

Mr. Gomez motioned for approval of the application as modified to Mr. Beutel’s recommendations and stipulated in his report. Vice Chair Lemont seconded the motion.

Chair Livingston stated that CRMC is always in favor of aquaculture and felt it was important to approve aquaculture applications. Chair Livingston is proud of the great commercial success stories of RI aquaculture and hopes that the future brings further success in a responsible way.

Motion carried with a voice vote, one opposing -- Mr. Affigne.

Mr. Beutel gave a brief overview of the application stating that it was for a 1.4 acre site growing oysters on long lines. Mr. Beutel confirmed that his research as well as RIDEM research had shown low density of native shellfish in area. Mr. Beutel stated that one objection was received but was quickly corrected due to incorrect location information regarding the navigability of the waters. Mr. Beutel stated that the Shellfish Advisory panel stated there was not significant impact and that CRMC staff recommended approval.

Mr. Sahagian motioned approval with stipulations. Vice Chair Lemont seconded the motion. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Continued to February 24, 2015