Skip to ContentSitemap

YouTubeFacebookTwittereNewsletter SignUp

CRMC Logo

RI Coastal Resources Management Council

...to preserve, protect, develop, and restore coastal resources for all Rhode Islanders

In accordance with notice to members of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, a meeting was held on Tuesday, January 9, 2018 at 6:00 p.m. in Conference Room A, Administration Building, One Capitol Hill, Providence, RI.

Members Present
Jennifer Cervenka, Chair
Don Gomez
Ron Gagnon, DEM Rep
Mike Hudner
Trish Reynolds
Michelle Collie
Joy Montanaro

Members Excused
Raymond Coia
Jerry Sahagian
Lisette Gomes

Staff Present
Grover Fugate, Executive Director
Jeff Willis, Deputy Director
Dave Reis, Spv Environmental Scientist
Dave Beutel, Aquaculture Coordinator
Danni Goulet, Marine Infrastructure Coordinator
John Longo, Legal Counsel


1. CALL TO ORDER

Chair Cervenka called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING

Mr. Hudner motioned for approval of minutes, seconded by Mr. Gagnon. The motion to approve the
minutes carried on a unanimous voice vote.

3. STAFF REPORTS

Director Fugate reported on the following:

  • Yale Climate Change news letter talking about GAO warned Federal Agencies about soaring costs of restoration due to climate change. Rhode Island was showcased on how we handle this.
  • Providence Business News is doing a series of three articles dealing with storms and climate change and what CRMC and RI are looking at. The first article will come out on January 18th.
  • The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has come out with expression of interest of leasing Northwest Atlantic for offshore oil and gas. There will be a Public Information meeting on January 25th in Providence. CRMC will be represented by Jeff Willis. The Attorney General’s office has already come out against this issue and the Governor’s office is not positive in this regard. The threat that is posed to fisheries will be is very great.
  • Although there has been a little bit of lull in activity, a number of states have put out calls for proposals for offshore wind to go forward with power purchase agreements – Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Delaware and Maryland. Deepwater Wind has a Power Purchase Agreement with Long Island for 90 Megawatts. CRMC will receive a construction operation plan to review within the next few weeks. We are asking that they voluntarily submit to consistency for us. We are also ready to start discussions with Bay State Wind due to the permitting process for the cable location in the Sakonnet River.
  • We have been asked to look at cable routes as part of the Bay SAMP.
  • Mr. Gomez asked about the fisheries impact in the Sakonnet from the cables. Mr. Fugate stated that the fishing industry is concerned that the lines will become an issue.

4. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS

None were heard.

5. Deepwater Wind – Block Island Wind Farm

Mr. Fugate explained that the Deepwater Wind and ABS will be here on the February 13th meeting.

Chair Cervenka checked for applicant attendance.

6. APPLICATION REQUESTING MODIFICATION OF ASSENT BEFORE THE COUNCIL:

2000-04-008 JOHN ELIASON – Modification to use larger cages to grow oysters on 2.7 acre aquaculture lease in Narragansett Bay off Caddy Avenue in Warwick, RI.

Mr. Beutel gave a brief overview of the application stating that the applicant would like modify his assent to be able to use large cages, typically used for storage of horseshoe crabs, on the aquaculture site to grow oysters. Mr. Beutel explained that the larger cages are ten feet long by three feet wide by three feet high. Mr. Beutel stated that three objections were received, Save The Bay, and landowners from the vicinity of the lease site. Mr. Beutel explained that the main objection was regarding the visualization of the cages which Mr. Eliason proposes to use in the shallow part of the aquaculture lease, and the cages would be visible during every tide but also could create a navigation hazard, a swimming hazard, prevent fishing/Shellfishing, and impact recreational use of the area. Mr. Eliason put the larger cages on the lease site prior to obtaining a modification from CRMC so it is known that oysters will grow in this type of cage. Mr. Beutel is concerned about the visual impact from the larger cages. The aquaculture site is not the applicant’s major form of income; it is a supplemental activity which has not sold more than 5,000 oysters in 5 years, questioning whether the cages are crucial to the operation.

Mr. Beutel stated that one suggestion was to put the cages on the offshore sections of the aquaculture lease which would be deep enough so that they would never be exposed. The objectors asked for the cages to be put into deeper water, the beach kept clean of debris and that the horseshoe crab are not to be on the aquaculture site which is prohibited by CRMC regulations.

Mr. Beutel stated that his recommendation would be to approve with staff stipulations – cages offshore, regular clean up of shoreside debris and that the horseshoe crabs never go onto the lease.
Mr. Beutel explained that the review process had taken so long because he had asked the applicant to work with the objectors, to try to alleviate their concerns and remove their objections. After a period of time and the objections had not been alleviated, the application came to the Council.

Chair Cervenka clarified that Mr. Beutel recommended approval with four stipulations:

  • Cages offshore,
  • Debris cleaned up on the lease,
  • Horseshoe crabs are never on the aquaculture site, and
  • Empty cages are not stored on the lease.

Mr. Beutel clarified that the horseshoe crab business is adjacent to the aquaculture lease and will
remain there.

John Eliason was unable to attend, however, Eric Eliason, his son and co-owner of the lease was present to speak out the application and answer questions. Eric Eliason was sworn in and identified himself for the record.

Mr. Eliason clarified that there had never been horseshoe crabs on the lease site as DEM had approved 100 cages in the shallows north of the aquaculture site. Mr. Eliason stated that there is not a navigational hazard and that DEM is in agreement. The Eliason’s are also planning to expand the horseshoe crab site asking DEM for 10 more cages south on the farm. Mr. Eliason agreed with Mr. Beutel that very few oysters were sold but believes that they would be able to sell more with these cages which would be exposed at low tide for about an hour by about a foot. Mr. Eliason expressed his concern about the visual objection stating that people cannot own a view. Mr. Beutel clarified that the application that was submitted requested 50 cages, not 10.

Chair Cervenka asked if Mr. Eliason would be open to reducing their requested 50 cages to 10 cages and if the stipulations set by CRMC staff were agreeable. Mr. Eliason agreed to 10 cages and agreed to most of the stipulations but not putting the cages in deeper water. Mr. Eliason stated that the purpose for the cages in shallower water was so that they could work the site without needing a boat.

Mr. Gagnon asked Mr. Beutel if there was still a concern that the lesser amount of cages would not be in deeper water. Mr. Beutel stated that it would not decrease the visual impact; it would be expanding it to a new location.

Ms. Collie asked for clarification as to the reason why cages cannot be submerged. Mr. Eliason explained that the cages are more accessible in the shallow waters.

Ms. Montanaro asked if it was routine to use the larger cages for growing aquaculture. Mr. Eliason stated that it was not a usual method but it would be easier to maintain when they are not sitting on the bottom; also, oyster growth out would be quicker.

Mr. Beutel explained that the visualization problem is from depth, not length of cage. Mr. Fugate stated that there is a new aquaculture technology called floating bag operations, which offers the same issues of visualization problems but more convenience to the aquaculturist. Regulations are being created to deal with visualization issues.

Mr. Beutel stated that the majority of the aquaculture cages can be handled by one person and that they are not bigger than a lobster pot.

There was discussion amongst the Council on what would happen if the Council denied the application. Mr. Fugate stated that a denial without prejudice would enable the applicant to reapply for the technology or technique that would not engender the same objections.

At the suggestion of Mr. Hudner, Mr. Eliason was asked if a continuation would be amenable to discuss other techniques, different cages, or submerging the larger ones.

Mr. Eliason stated that his father would insist on the request remaining as it is.

Chair Cervenka asked the objectors to come up:

George Shuster was sworn in and identified himself for the record. Mr. Shuster stated that he lived north of the site and that he was surprised that the CRMC did not have jurisdiction over horseshoe crab cages. Mr. Shuster explained that a neighbor went through a tax appeal and was granted an $80,000 deduction as a result of the nuisance that the operation causes to his property. The visualization issue is not imagined from the Town’s perspective.

Michael Jarbeau, Narragansett Bay Keeper with Save The Bay, was sworn in and identified himself for the record. Mr. Jarbeau confirmed that Save The Bay had submitted written concerns that remained applicable but wanted to add that Save The Bay does not agree with a weekly clean up but that debris should not be allowed on the adjacent shoreline.

Armand Lusi, a supporter of applicant, was sworn in and identified himself for the record as John Eliason’s Brother in law. Mr. Lusi explained that the Eliason’s wanted to stack six OCB bags in the 3’x3’x10’ foot cages but that is was not viable to keep them completely submerged. Mr. Luis stated that there was no debris on the site. Mr. Luis was unsure as to why having 100 cages permitted by DEM Fisheries would be less a visual objection than the cages requested for this site.

Ronald Amirault was sworn in and identified himself for the record. Mr. Amirault stated that they did not object to the horseshoe crab cages because the cages are removed when the season is over, which is maybe three or four months. Mr. Amirault stated that they objected to the aquaculture modification because they would be looking at the cages all summer and fall.

Mr. Gomez motioned to deny the application without prejudice explaining that the hopes the applicant would reconsider aquaculture techniques and reapply. Mr. Hudner seconded the motion.

Chair Cervenka expressed support for the motion stating that the applicant was requesting a technique that is not an industry-accepted technique and that the applicant was not amenable to the condition set forth. Chair Cervenka stated that alternatives are available and that CRMC would work with the applicant so that they can grow their oyster business.

Mr. Hudner suggested approving on the Council level and having the applicant and the CRMC staff work out changes on the administrative level. Mr. Hudner recognized that his suggestion would require an amendment of the motion but looking to streamline things for the Council and that it would be beneficial for the applicant and staff to work things out.

Mr. Gomez withdrew his motion.

Mr. Hudner motioned to approve the application with staff stipulations: cleanup of aquaculture gear, empty caged not be stored on the site, horseshoe crabs cannot be on the lease and the cages cannot be visible at all stages of the tide except when working on the cages – smaller cages or deeper water.
Mr. Gomez seconded the motion.

Chair Cervenka clarified that the applicant agreed to limit of 10 cages. Mr. Gagnon suggested using the area equivalent to 10 larger cages because if you use smaller cages you may be able to use more.
The motion carried on unanimous voice vote. Brief recess.

6. APPLICATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN OUT-TO-NOTICE AND ARE BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL FOR DECISION:

2017-01-007 DAVID ROEBUCK -- Create and maintain an expansion to an existing aquaculture site in Point Judith Pond (maps attached). Please note that the western expansion is for bottom plant only and is for 10.5 acres. The expansion to the south is for using bottom cages and is two acres. Currently 3 acres of the existing site is permitted for bottom cages. The use of bottom cages on the 3 acre area will be relinquished if the two acre area is approved. Located in Point Judith Pond, Narragansett, RI.

Mr. Beutel gave brief overview of the application stating that the applicant was requesting a 12 acre expansion to the west of the existing farm and two acres to house cages in that area. Mr. Beutel stated that the vast majority of this site would remain bottom plant. Mr. Beutel stated that this lease is a very successful farm and that the reason it is before the Counsel is that it requires a variance to expand more than 6 acres for bottom planting.

Mr. Beutel stated that an eel grass survey revealed no eelgrass in the area. The application drew no objections during the public notice period and that there were no concerns from staff. Mr. Beutel stated that the variance criteria had been addressed to the staff’s satisfaction.

Mr. Beutel clarified that the applicant is giving up permission to use bottom cages on northern three acres to use top cages.

Mr. Beutel explained that there are no user conflicts in this 21 acre site. The Camp Fuller Sailing School uses the corner markers as sailing buoys and sail through his lease. There is a good compatible use of the water for recreation and aquaculture – very successful operation.

Chair Cervenka added that a minimum proof of performance bond is also a suggested condition of permit as per Mr. Beutel’s report.

David Roebuck was sworn in and identified himself for the record. Mr. Roebuck stated that the farm was started in 2002 using a bottom plant method to solve neighborhood problems and that they are branching off and starting a hatchery in East Matunuck and would need more space for growout. Mr. Roebuck stated that he had reviewed the staff report and agreed with the recommended stipulation of performance bond for cages.

Mr. Gomez motioned, seconded by Mr. Gagnon, to approve the application with staff stipulations.

Motion carried on unanimous voice vote.

2017-03-011 SPRAGUE OPERATING RESOURCES, LLC. -- Construct and maintain a new breasting dolphin at the northwest corner of the existing pier to allow safe berthing of ships. The project will also remove debris from the bottom of the harbor in the vicinity of the proposed dolphin. The project has a variance request due to the inability to meet the setback distance from the federal channel. Located at plat 007, lot 001-10; 0 Pier Road, East Providence, RI.

Chair Cervenka explained that she needed to recuse herself for this application which would affect the quorum, therefore this application was being continued by the Council to the next meeting - January 23rd.

2017-03-066 QUONSET DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION -- New and maintenance dredging of the West Quonset Channel of approximately 206,350 CY with offshore disposal of the material at the Rhode Island Sound Disposal site. Located at General Dynamics (Electric Boat), Quonset Point, North Kingstown, RI; Plat Number: 185-029, 185-032, 186-011, 186-012.

Mr. Reis gave a brief overview of the application stating that the applicant proposed to dredge as necessary to establish a new navigation channel to service the Electric Boat facility at Quonset Point which is to be referred to as the West Quonset Channel. The proposed channel will be approximately 3300 feet in length and approximately 350 feet in width with a dredge dept of approximately 16 feet MLW. Mr. Reis explained that the proposed new channel would connect the existing Quonset turning basin east of the Carrier Pier with an expanded turning basin to be approximately 895 feet wide by 700 feet long and located seaward of the Electric Boat facility bulkhead. Mr. Reis stated that the dreding will effect approximately 45 acres of Narragansett Bay and result in the dredfging of approximately 206,000 cubic yards of materials which will be transported to the RI Sound Disposal Site for release with a dump scow. Mr. Reis stated that the project is consistent with the Council’s polices for Type 6 waters as it is intended to service the commercial, industrial and shipping activities of Electric Boat.

Mr. Reis stated that they agreed with the Category B requirements submitted by the applicant but requested additional details to demonstrate that the alteration or activity will not result in significant impacts on the abundance and diversity of plant and animal life. Mr. Reis stated it was important for the basin to be designed to flush with tidal currents so as not to collect organics and fine sediments which could cause anoxia and alter the bottom habitat, thereby effecting fisheries in the area.

Mr. Reis stated that CRMC concluded that the project will not result in significant long-term impacts to the bottom habitat or the fisheries supported by the bottom habitat. Mr. Reis stated that the adherence to the dredge window will minimize impact on spawning activities in the area.

Mr. Reis stated that staff recommended approval of application with stipulations and that the staff engineer recommended approval with stipulation regarding the need for approvals for Private Aids to Navigation (PATON) necessary to mark the channel.

Mr. Hudner asked why they only asked for 15.5 feet. Mr. Goulet stated that they use a barge with slices of the submarines back and forth to New London. Mr. Reis confirmed that they were only going three feet deeper than the surrounding bottom.

Mr. Reis confirmed for Chair Cervenka that there would be no permanent impact.

Mr. Reis stated that based on information and discussions with fisheries biologists who monitor other areas of the bay in similar conditions, the channel should flush fairly well.

Chair Cervenka asked about staff recommended stipulations. Mr. Reis stated that there is a dredge window stipulation and a stipulation on private aids to navigation.

Mr. Goulet clarified the dredge disposal stipulation in his report stating that it is one of the standard dredge stipulations. Mr. Goulet explained that the local harbor master puts out private aids to navigation to mark the channel like a normal navigation channel but it’s not a federally-maintained marker. Mr. Goulet explained that the Coast Guard has a program which allows the private owner to put markers out and they show up on Coast Guard navigation charts.

Chair Cervenka asked the applicant if they would like to speak.

Edward J. Spinard, Jr., Development Service Director for Quonset Development Corporation, was sworn in and identified himself for the record. Mr. Spindard explained that the project supports a major growth industry in the State and he expressed his appreciation to the CRMC staff for their assistance in this project that has taken over a year to complete.

Mr. Hudner motioned, seconded by Mr. Gomez, to approve the project with staff stipulations.

Motion carried on unanimous voice vote.

2017-05-034 QUONSET DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION – Conduct repairs and improvements to Pier 2 that include encapsulating the existing pier with a new sheetpile wall and filling the area between with concrete. The proposal also includes a 232’ long x 124’ wide pier extension to the north and relocation of rip rap along the north face. The demolition includes removal of the exiting pile supported trestle, existing fender system and portions of the deck. There are heavy lift platforms being installed within the perimeter of the pier. Located at Terminal Way - Pier 2, North Kingstown, RI; Plat 193, lot 15.

Mr. Goulet gave a brief overview of the two phased project to conduct maintenance on the existing pier which will include encapsulation with a new sheet pile wall and construct a new pier extension to the north. Mr. Goulet stated that the project is phased due to a conflict with DEM Water Quality Classification; however, there are no conflicts with CRMC Type 6 water classification. Mr. Goulet stated that a future dredging component for this project will be submitted to allow for a future pier extension.

Mr. Goulet stated that it is the opinion of staff that the maintenance activity and the new pier meet the requirements of the coastal program and recommend approval with stipulation that required the new pier portion to be held until they get their water quality conflict sorted out with RIDEM.

Edward J. Spinard, Jr., sworn in on previous application, gave a brief history of the Port of Davisville as the economic driver in the State of Rhode Island explaining that the pier is 60 years old with a design life of 50 years. Mr. Spinard stated that the voters approved a bond of $50 million dollars in November. Mr. Spinard expressed appreciation to CRMC for their help.

Ms. Collie motioned, seconded by Ms. Reynolds to approve based on application materials and staff report with stipulations.

Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Fugate gave brief explanation of Town of Westerly Assent which was distributed to Council stating that the two phased project was a dredging project using funding supplied by the Department of Agriculture and the Natural Resources District.

9. ADJOURN

Ms. Reynolds motioned, seconded by Mr. Hudner, to adjourn.
Motion carried on unanimous voice vote. Meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Lisa A. Turner
Recording Secretary

CALENDAR INDEX

Stedman Government Center
Suite 116, 4808 Tower Hill Road, Wakefield, RI 02879-1900
Voice 401-783-3370 • Fax 401-783-2069 • E-Mail cstaff1@crmc.ri.gov

RI SealRI.gov
An Official Rhode Island State Website