RI Coastal Resources Management Council
...to preserve, protect, develop, and restore coastal resources for all Rhode Islanders
...to preserve, protect, develop, and restore coastal resources for all Rhode Islanders
In accordance with notice to member of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, a meeting was held on Tuesday, November 22, 2022 at 6:00 p.m. located at the Administration Building, Conference Room A, One Capitol Hill, Providence, RI.
Members Present
Raymond Coia, Chair
Donald Gomez
Ronald Gagnon
Lindsey McGovern
Catherine Robinson Hall
Stephen Izzi
Members Excused:
Patricia Reynolds
Jerry Sahagian
Staff Present
Jeffrey Willis, Executive Director
Justin Skenyon, Ocean Engineer
Kevin Sloan, Coastal Policy Analyst
David Ciochetto, Ocean Engineer
Anthony DeSisto, Legal Counsel
Mark Hartman, Asst Legal Council
Lisa Turner, Office Manager, Recording Secretary
Cindy Tangney, Court Reporter
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Coia called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m.
2. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
Chair Coia called for a motion regarding the minutes for the Tuesday, November 1, 2022 Semi-monthly Meeting and Wednesday, November 9, 2022 Semi-monthly Meeting.
For the November 1, 2022 minutes:
Motion: Mr. Gomez
Second: Ms. McGovern
Motion carried on a unanimous vote.
For the November 9, 2022 minutes:
Motion: Mr. Gomez
Second: Ms. McGovern
Motion carried on a unanimous vote.
3. Subcommittee Reports
Mr. Willis reported:
Mr. Gomez motioned to begin promulgating the regulation. Seconded by Ms. McGovern.
Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote.
4. Staff Reports
Mr. Willis Reported:
5. Review and Action regarding Application requiring Public Hearing and Special Exception:
2021-07-005 REVOLUTION WIND -- Two submarine export transmission cables (275 kilovolt high voltage alternating current (AC)) have been proposed for the project. Each cable measures approximately 23 miles in length and has been proposed to be installed in CRMC Type 4 and 6 Waters in Rhode Island Sound and the West Passage of Narragansett Bay, making landfall at the Quonset Business Park, North Kingstown. The export cable requires a Special Exception (see RICRMP § 1.1.8) to the CRMC’s Ocean SAMP § 11.10.2. Areas of Particular Concern (APC) which presumptively excludes from APCs all large-scale, small-scale, or other offshore development, or any portion of a proposed project. This exclusion is rebuttable if the applicant can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that there are no practicable alternatives that are less damaging in areas outside of the APC, or that the proposed project will not result in a significant alteration to the values and resources of the APC.
The cables will be installed at a target burial depth of 4-6 feet (or deeper) below the seabed, which will create a total estimated disturbance of approximately 730 acres within state waters. Secondary cable protection in the form of rock bags, concrete mattresses, and/or rock berms may be used where the target burial depth cannot be achieved.
The export cables will make landfall at the Quonset Business Park, the heavily Industrial waterfront via horizontal directional drilling, which will require the construction of two offshore exit pits.
After joining with the export cables, the Onshore Transmission Cable will follow Circuit Drive northwest to 135 Circuit Drive, where it will cross this property north of the existing driveway and cross the property in a north-northwest direction until reaching the property owned by Quonset Development Corporation. Here the cable will continue north until reaching 101 Circuit Drive. The cable will then continue north across 101 Circuit Drive and 75 Circuit Drive within the existing paved access road to the existing Davisville Substation. At the Davisville Substation, the cable continues west, parallel to the northern property boundary before reaching The Narragansett Electric Company's parcel. After crossing, the cable enters the Onshore Substation tying into the proposed access road. The total cable length is approximately one mile.
Additionally a variance to OSAMP Section § 11.9.9 (Baseline Assessment Requirements and Standards in State Waters) is being sought.
Robin Main and Christine Dieter present for Revolution Wind.
Ms. Main addressed the Council and informed them about the intended witnesses and a variance and a special exception presumptive approval to also argue.
Witness #1: Hauke Kite-Powell, PhD was sworn in and identified himself for the record and gave a brief explanation of his education and professional experience – Research Specialist at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. Dr. Kite-Powell briefly described the other members of Woods Hole Group, Dr. Di Jin and Dr. Michael Weir. Dr. Kite-Powell explained that he had been doing the research for Orsted for a while, working on Southfork Wind Project, Revolution Wind, and Sunrise Wind. Dr. Kite-Powell confirmed he was familiar with the area of Narragansett Bay where Revolution Wind export cables will be located.
Dr. Kite-Powell explained that he and his colleagues had done the report describing baseline or historical values of fisheries activities around the state waters portion of the Revolution Wind export cable and what the values would likely be with the development of the project. Dr. Kite-Powell explained that they relied on the data from NOAA and RIDEM which is publicly available so that the analysis can be replicated by others. Dr. Kite Powell stated that they did a survey of charter captains to get information as well. After going through his research data review process, Dr. Kite Powell explained that the total estimated exposure, including induced and indirect effects, is 2.26 million in 2020 dollars. Dr. Kite Powell further explained the impact to private recreational fishing is extremely uncertain and estimated the impact at less than $100k per year.
Dr. Kite Powell stated that there was direct feedback from the fishermen, and constructive interactions with Todd Guilkist (sp) and the Fishermen’s Advisory Board as well as helpful review of reports from Rob Griffin and Steve Cadrin.
Mr. Gomez asked about the recovery timeframe difference and staff report stipulations. Mr. DeSisto stated it was premature to discuss staff stipulations.
Ms. Hall asked for clarification on construction schedules beginning in September of 2023 and extends to January of 2024. Dr. Kite Powell stated that the work would be the end of the 3rd quarter and into the 4th quarter. Dr. Kite Powell stated that the analysis did not assume any seasonal difference
Mr. Izzi asked for clarification on exposure numbers and the gap up to years 23 and 24. Dr. Kite-Powell stated that there would be no exposure during that timeframe due to no construction activity. Dr. Kite-Powell estimated 112k for decommissioning.
Dr. Kite-Powell confirmed estimate of 340k per year for Mr. Izzi regarding RI Charter Fishing. No further questions for Dr. Kite-Powell.
Attorney Christine Dieter presented next two witnesses:
Dr. Ben Cotts was sworn in and identified himself for the record stating that he was a Principal Engineer working for Exponent in the electrical engineering and computer science practice. Dr. Cotts explained his educational and professional background. Dr. Cotts explained that for the Revolution Wind project he performed electrical engineering modeling of the magnetic fields from the export cable and inter-array cables from the transmission line which helped to measure the current in units called milligauss.
Dr. Cotts explained that the areas covered by concrete mattress showed that a maximum magnetic field level at maximum loading would be approximately 1,025 milligauss.
Dr. Cotts explained that the areas where the cable was buried to a depth of one meter the magnetic field would be 82 milligauss and that the field levels decreased very rapidly with distance such that when you get out to ten feet on either side of the cable, levels have reduced to under one milligauss.
Second witness, Dr. Katherine Palmquist was sworn in and identified herself for the record and explaining her educational and professional background. Dr. Palmquist stated that she worked for Exponent as a Sr. Managing Scientist. Dr. Palmquist stated that there would be no behavioral effect on fish and crustacean species as well as no impact on embryonic survival along the routes.
When asked about the fishermen’s assertion that they could not catch fish at the Block Island Wind Farm anymore due to EMF levels, Dr. Palmquist answered that it does not seem to be in line with populations studies conducted at the Block Island Wind Farm which showed there were no adverse impacts of any aspect of the wind farm on the fish population.
Mr. Gomez asked about effects of 60 hertz having harmonics present and what impact that would have on fish population. Dr. Palmquist stated that the research and studies (California Study) showed no evidence that impacted any of the species.
Mr. Gomez asked about the shielding and if there was covering over the steel cable to stop cathartic reaction. Dr. Cotts explained that the construction of the cable has three phase conductors that are actually carrying the power. Outside that, there is insulation, and there are a couple of additional layers. And, at the very outside of the cable, there is this ring of steel wires that's there for the armoring. And then immediately outside of that is a cross-linked polyethylene or XLPE layer that encapsulates the entire cable.
Ms. Hall asked about the California Study and what the cables were for. Dr. Palmquist stated they were powering offshore oil platforms but having the same frequency of 60 hertz. Ms. Hall asked about the depth of water in the California Study as opposed to RI waters. Dr. Palmquist did not know but mentioned that the primary difference is that the California cables were not buried but the species were similar. Ms. Hall stated that the difference in water depth would be significant because of the continental shelf. Dr. Palmquist was very sure that the EMF detection would not be effected by water depth.
No further questions from Council.
Ms. Dieter call Drew Carey who was sworn in and identified himself for the record explaining that he was the CEO of Inspire Environmental and they were asked to conduct a survey of the location and condition of the mattressing on the export cable of the Block Island Wind Farm one year after installation to determine whether there was any fishing gear entangled on the mattresses and if any mattresses had moved since installation. Mr. Carey explained they used high resolution seafloor mapping tools, and the location of the mattresses when originally placed. Mr. Carey stated that there was no fishing gear entangled on the mattresses and that the mattresses had not moved. Mr. Carey also testified about trawl images based on a page of his survey report showing images of the seabed for the BI Wind Farm site. Mr. Carey stated that there were a number of trawl images going over the mattresses with no interruption.
Ms. Dieter asked Mr. Carey about research between any potential wind farm effect and the general environmental change that occurs in any part of the ocean over time. Five tows were done within the area of the wind farm, specifically over cables, and they found no adverse effect on the abundance of fish throughout the entire survey. There were no significant negative effects to fish and invertebrate from the wind farm.
Ms. Hall asked about the impact of scouring around the placement of the concrete pads. Mr. Carey stated that BOEM had sponsored a study that was conducted showing the movement of sediment and in this particular area, there was no scouring seen.
Mr. Izzi asked if any studies had been conducted to see if there was damage to mattresses from trawling. Mr. Carey stated he had not seen any specific study.
No further questions.
Ms. Main called Jesper Christensen who was sworn in and identified himself for the record. Mr. Christensen stated he was employed as the Senior Commercial Project Manager for Orsted with responsibilities for all aspects of commercial nature within the project development. Mr. Christensen confirmed to Ms. Main asked that he had worked on the mitigation package for Revolution Wind.
Chair Coia asked the Stenographer to read back the question. (Steno read back the question)
Mr. DeSisto stated that the line of questioning this may be premature as there was not a mitigation package before the Council and that negotiations are ongoing.
Ms. Main stated that they had met with the FAB a number of times and that Revolution Wind mad an offer to the FAB for them to consider. Ms. Main stated that there has been considerable back and forth between parties and that there was progress although an agreement had not yet been made.
Ms. Main stated that they do want to progress this project and bring it to vote and that she only meant to lay out what we have done so far in mitigation.
Mr. DeSisto suggested a ten minute break.
8:00
Chair Coia announced reconvening of the meeting and referred to Attorney DeSisto for a few comments.
Mr. DeSisto stated that mitigation needed to be addressed but that negotiations are still ongoing. Once negotiations are completed, CRMC staff needs to see the agreement and make a report to the Council. Mr. Desisto asked the applicant to make arguments on Special Exception, Variances and the reference to Section 46-23-1 and the role of the General Assembly in approving matters of this nature.
Ms. Main began with the acknowledgement that the mitigation negotiations had not been complete but wanted to update the Council.
Ms. Main stated that the application was submitted with a request for a special exception as well as a rebutted presumption about the area the special exception involves. Ms. Main referred back to the November 1st testimony stating that the Rev Wind export cables pass through 10% of the recreational area of particular concern (APC) in Rhode Island Sound – this is regards to sailboat racing, regattas other recreational activities. Ms. Main stated that she asked the council that they rebutted the presumption as well as understand that the Special Exception is deserved so that there are no legal issues arising from this.
Ms. Main addressed the criteria for Special Exception stating that the project can meet certain requirements such as compelling public purpose that benefits the public – such as energy projects which this is. Ms. Main stated that the other requirement met is that it is a water-dependent activity that generates substantial economic gain to the state. Ms. Main stated that all reasonable steps had been taken to minimize environmental impacts or use conflicts as evidenced in testimony of Ross Pearsall on November 1; as well as Megan Eakin’s testimony on November 1. Ms. Main stated that there is no other route that can be taken for the cable route.
Ms. Main also addressed the Council on rebutting the presumption explaining that Revolution Wind needs to demonstrate that there are no practical alternatives that are less damaging or that the proposed project will not result in a significant alteration to the values and resources of the APC. Ms. Main stated that Revolution Wind was not going to have any impact on the values of the resources of that recreational APC. Ms. Main stated that the OSAMP gives some latitude as well when it says that underwater cables may be installed within APCs.
Ms. Main stated that they had two more arguments, with the first being the stipulation in the staff report about going to the general assembly for submerged land lease. Ms. Main, using the CRMC enabling act, explained that the General Assembly looks at project of 25 acres or more if the project includes filling. Ms. Main stated that with the exceptions of those projects, the General Assembly recognizes and declares that CRMC is delegated the sole and exclusive authority for the leasing of submerged and filled lands and giving licenses for the use of that land. Ms. Main stated that this is in their pre-hearing filing.
Ms. Dieter addressed the Council regarding the variance from a limited section of the Ocean SAMP, and that is §11.9.9 which states that the project collect two years of baseline biological assessments of commercially and recreationally targeted fishing species before construction begins. Ms. Dieter referred back to Kyle Cassidy’s testimony of November 1 regarding the ventless trap survey which will begin in January of 2023 while the project will not begin installation until October/November of 2024 which allows for just under two years of data collection. Ms. Dieter also explained that the OSAMP allows for the applicant to incorporate pre-existing RIDEM data. Ms. Dieter went through all six variance criteria and stated that they meet the six criteria for a variance and ask that the Council grant the project a variance with respect to OSAMP §11.9.9.
No questions from the Council
Chair Coia asked if Counsel had any other testimony on the Special Exception or the Variance request. None was heard.
Chair Coia concluded the hearing for the evening stating that at next hearing there would be a report back on mitigation and the Council would hear Public Comment on Cat B application.
The meeting would take place on Tuesday, December 13, 2022.
7. ADJOURN
Motion to adjourn carried on unanimous vote
Motion: Mr. Gomez
Second: Ms. McGovern
Unanimous voice vote.
Meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Minutes respectfully submitted,
Lisa A. Turner
Recording Secretary
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
An Official Rhode Island State Website