In accordance with public notice dated May 24, 2019 a meeting of the Planning and Procedures subcommittee was held on Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 4:00 p.m. at the offices Cervenka Green Ducharme Antonelli, LLC, 235 Promenade Street, Suite 475, Providence, RI.

MEMBERS PRESENT
Jennifer Cervenka, Chair
Donald Gomez
Angelo Liberti, DEM representative
Patricia Reynolds

STAFF PRESENT
Grover Fugate, Executive Director
James Boyd, Coastal Policy Analyst
Anthony DeSisto, Legal Counsel

PUBLIC
None

Call to Order. Ms. Cervenka called the subcommittee meeting to order at 4:15 p.m.

Item 4A – 650-RICR-20-00-1 § 1.2.2(A)(1)(d)(13) - Coastal Beaches

G. Fugate explained that staff was recommending that this section explicitly require that all vehicles driving on coastal beaches with a valid CRMC permit be required to be 4x4 wheel drive to minimize risk of getting stuck on the beaches. Based on information from local municipal police and DEM Environmental Police Officers there is increasing incidences of vehicles without 4x4 wheel drive getting stuck on beaches. The subcommittee inquired as to whether all-wheel drive vehicles could be included as permissible. Mr. Fugate stated that he had inquired about that issue with staff, but was informed that all-wheel drive does not provide the necessary traction in sand conditions and that 4x4 wheel drive vehicles are better at handling adverse conditions on the beaches.

Item 4B - 650-RICR-20-00-1 § 1.3.3(P)(4)(a) - Boat lift and float lift systems

Mr. Fugate and Mr. Boyd explained that the proposed amendment to the boat and float lift standard was to address staff concerns based on application review and observations of various boat and float lifts that have been previously permitted. Mr. Fugate explained that boat and float lifts are typically used in areas subject to fetch and high wave energy to avoid damage to boats or floating docks that are hoisted above the water surface. In addition, hoisted boats do not accumulate marine growth as do boats that stay continuously in the water. Subcommittee members inquired about the increase in height above high tide level water from 3 to 5 feet and why the boat or float lift now has to be an accessory structure to a fixed pier or bulkhead as proposed. Mr. Fugate explained that in high fetch areas 3 feet is not sufficient height to avoid some waves, but that the vessel gunwale or float deck cannot exceed the elevation of the pier deck or bulkhead for the purpose of avoiding scenic impacts. He further indicated that the lift must be an accessory structure to a fixed pier or bulkhead to avoid lifts being attached to floating dock sections, which can prove to be unstable.

Mr. Gomez, seconded by Ms. Reynolds, moved to approve the amendments as proposed in Items 4A and 4B and for staff to proceed with rule-making. The subcommittee voted unanimously in favor of the motion.

Item 5A. Habitat Restoration & Management
Item 5B. Wetland Restoration
Item 5C. Upland Buffer Zone Restoration and Invasive Plant Management

Mr. Fugate explained that the draft language for Items 5A through C were for discussion purposes only and no action was requested at this time. He indicated that the staff proposal to create these separate subsections is an effort to better describe the policies and standards for current practices in habitat restoration, invasive plant management and to separate out true wetland restoration efforts as opposed to applications that on their face appear to be wetland restoration, but are designed for other purposes such as enhanced views. Mr. Fugate explained that the proposal is a work in progress and that staff are still reviewing and modifying the drafts. A final draft of Items 5A-C will be presented to the subcommittee at a later date when completed and ready to begin the rule-making process.

Item 5D. Construction of Shoreline Protection Facilities (formerly § 300.7)

Mr. Fugate and Mr. Boyd explained that the current draft proposal is a work in progress to define the different types of shoreline protection practices and provide subsections for soft, hybrid and hard structure techniques. The revised section will be renamed “Shoreline Protection” to be inclusive of all techniques, rather than just structural methods. In addition, the revised section will require applicants to first propose soft or hybrid techniques, as opposed to hard structures. The subcommittee inquired whether the applicant would need to demonstrate through an engineering analysis that soft or hybrid techniques are not feasible for the site in question. Mr. Fugate confirmed that such an analysis would be required for most areas, but it is expected that for existing manmade shorelines, port areas, etc., that structural shoreline protection may be more appropriate than soft or hybrid techniques. A final draft of Item 5D will be presented to the subcommittee when completed and ready to begin the rule-making process.

ADJOURNMENT. Ms. Cervenka, seconded by Mr. Gomez, moved to adjourn the subcommittee meeting. All voted in favor of the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted by

Jeffrey M Willis, Deputy Director

 

CALENDAR INDEX