To the editor:
As described by Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM), the proposed hotel development will alter and disturb 4,717 square feet of swamp and 45,200 square …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
Please log in to continue |
Register to post eventsIf you'd like to post an event to our calendar, you can create a free account by clicking here. Note that free accounts do not have access to our subscriber-only content. |
Are you a day pass subscriber who needs to log in? Click here to continue.
To the editor:
As described by Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM), the proposed hotel development will alter and disturb 4,717 square feet of swamp and 45,200 square feet of perimeter wetlands. This wetland area is part of the eastern branch of the Silver Creek Watershed; wetlands provide flood storage, which helps mitigate flooding. As many of us know, a serious flooding problem already occurs downstream of this proposed hotel site. Filling in and altering wetlands will only increase the severity of flooding for the residents of Bristol.
RIDEM required that objections to the proposal be written and “must relate to the proposed project’s impacts on the functions and values provided by the freshwater wetlands to be altered.”
During the public comment period, RIDEM received thirty-five (35) letters of opposition and a petition signed by over 100 residents. The correspondence included residents facing flooding problems and members of Bristol Land Conservation Trust. Likewise, many of the letters were authored by knowledgeable professionals: engineers, wetland specialists, geologists, and individuals with PhDs. The Bristol Conservation Committee informed RIDEM of their concern of the impact of building on 50,000 square feet of wetlands, and its negative effect on property downstream of Silver Creek.
Moreover, the Town Council informed RIDEM of the flooding concerns and the potential impact of the hotel development on the new high school site. The Town clearly stated that RIDEM should thoroughly examine all aspects of the flooding problems. The Town reiterated that they trust RIDEM to perform a comprehensive assessment to ensure the protection of our Town from filling in wetlands that will increase flooding.
However, RIDEM determined that the written objections did not rise to a substantive nature and stated that the proposed hotel does not represent: “a random, undesirable, and alteration of freshwater wetlands”.
One can only wonder how RIDEM arbitrarily and capriciously dismissed 35 letters. It is inconceivable that such concerns/objections did not rise to the standard of substantive nature. RIDEM did not provide any explanation. RIDEM’s decision is insulting and condescending; we trusted them to conduct a comprehensive assessment and safeguard our community. The Fresh Water Wetlands Act of 1971 was designed to protect our wetlands because wetlands protect us. RIDEM has failed us and covers its decision with: “In permitting the proposed alterations, the Department assumes no responsibility for damages…” The Town deserves to know how RIDEM arrived at this paradoxical decision.
Ted and Emily Spinard
35 Dartmouth Street