Proposed Changes to R.I. Wetland Buffers Cause Agita
By TIM FAULKNER/ecoRI News staff
Healthy freshwater wetlands protect drinking-water supplies. (Frank Carini/ecoRI News)
Rewriting
the rules for protective areas around freshwater wetlands, known as buffers,
has been in the works since 2013, but few of the stakeholders are happy with
the latest proposal, as business interests conflict with environmental groups.
The changes to natural
zones abutting lakes, rivers, streams, marshes, and areas prone to flooding
were largely driven by developers and real-estate professionals who called for
streamlining the construction permitting process. The proposed rules
accomplish this by replacing local zoning regulations with statewide standards.
Environmentalists and
open-space advocates like that elements of the updated regulations offer new or
larger buffers for swamps, marshes, bogs, vernal pools, and some ponds.
Rhode Island’s proposed wetland regulations are unique to different regions. (DEM)
The rules create
jurisdictional areas that are regulated by the Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management (DEM) and the Coastal Resources Management Council
(CRMC). In most cases, these zones extend 200 feet from the edge of a river,
floodplain, or reservoir, and 100 feet for most other wetlands.
The proposed regulations
have several nuances and provisions, such as a requirement that notification of
a development be sent to all property owners within 200 feet of a project.
Also, a decision on an application must be issued within 42 days after a public
hearing. Although local jurisdiction is eliminated, the rules allow cities and
towns to petition state agencies for a larger buffer.
If the latest standards
are approved, buffers would increase in most communities. While municipalities
with stricter standards, such as Jamestown and Little Compton, would see some
buffers reduced.
In Jamestown, for
instance, setbacks from deciduous swamps would decrease from 150 feet to as
little as 50 feet. Town planner Lisa Bryer objected to some of the state
wetland regulations during an online Jan. 6 public comment meeting. Most
residents, she said, rely on wells for drinking water and onsite septic
systems, which are overburdened by hotter summers and increased precipitation.
"These events of
climate change will strain the capacity of our freshwater swamps and wetlands
to provide the environmental quality functions: flood storage, pollution
filtration, nutrient recycling, for which we currently rely on them,” Bryer
said.
She noted that
freshwater discharge areas are becoming freshwater recharge areas. She said a
long-term outlook is needed to ensure that buffers can keep up with development
and the broad use of pesticides and lawn chemicals.
“I think we are entering
a period of climate change that is accelerating and we may well look back and
wish we had called for even further protections,” Bryer said.
Save The Bay riverkeeper
Kate McPherson noted that within the scientific community a 200-foot buffer is
considered “woefully inadequate” to protect wildlife.
“When viewed through the
scientific lens,” she said, “these increases in buffer zones are not adequate
for wildlife, and may not be adequate for water quality protection in many
cases.”
McPherson, a wetlands
scientist, noted that the proposed rules threaten woodlands and urban wetlands,
which can have a buffer as small as 15 feet.
“Valuable forest will be
lost to development,” she said.
Sustainable building
advocate Grow Smart Rhode Island is also calling for greater protections for
the small rivers and streams that flow through the state’s watersheds.
“In the event these
areas become degraded we will not be successful in maintaining or restoring
water quality elsewhere,” said Scott Millar, director of conservation for Grow
Smart Rhode Island. “The science clearly supports more protection for these
streams.”
The Rhode Island
Builders Association (RIBA) opposes the lager buffers and asked for more time
to vet the proposed rules. A
forthcoming report from RIBA will include comments from three economists and a
wetlands scientist.
One of the economists,
Bryant University professor Edinaldo Tebaldi, questioned DEM’s economic
cost-benefit report and suggested that the numbers be revised to not just
consider the loss of property value but “reflect the true benefits to our
society.” He noted the “vast literature” about the economic drawbacks of land
preservation that aren’t included in the DEM report such as the harm to jobs,
income, tax revenue, commercial real estate, and commerce.
The Rhode Island
Association of Realtors claims the new buffers will reduce property values for
single-family homes and lead to lawsuits by property owners who object to new
restrictions on building.
“The approval of these
rule-making changes may provide leverage to the government to deny most if not
all expansion of existing homes,” said Philip Tedesco, the association’s CEO.
Save The
Lakes, a group of Rhode Island lake associations, like that the
rules expand protections for lakes and ponds, terms used interchangeably in
Rhode Island. Its members said enhanced buffers for headwater wetlands and
vernal pools would help keep waterways cleaner.
Save The Lakes director
Ron Entringer noted DEM’s low staffing and called for greater oversight and
enforcement of regulations, a sentiment that was repeated throughout the recent
hearing.
The effort to create
uniform setback regulations began in 2013 with a 16-member legislative task
force. The recommendations culminated with a legislative mandate
passed in 2015 that called on DEM and CRMC to establish freshwater wetland
protections and enforce them. The rule-making has been delayed by disagreements
between business and environmental interests, retirement of DEM staff, the
public-health crisis, and a state mandate to reformat, index, and publish all
rules online.
Terrence Gray, DEM’s
deputy director for environmental protection, said the regulations have been
vetted and are open to review by the public.
“The draft rules we have
strike s balance for all of these interests,” Gray said.
Public comment is open
until Jan. 22 and can be sent to carol.murphy@dem.ri.gov.
Once the comment period
closes, DEM may approve the rule, approve it with minor changes, or restart the
process if major changes are needed.
CRMC has similar wetland
buffer changes to adopt for its coastal management regulation. Unlike the DEM
rules, the CRMC rules don’t set time limits for approving an application, among
other differences. CRMC is expected to announce a hearing date for its proposed
regulations soon.
