Rhode Island Code of Regulations › Title 650 - Coastal Resources Management Council › Chapter 20 - Coastal Management Program › Subchapter 00 - N/A › Part 5 - Metro Bay Region Special Area Management Plan › Section 650-RICR-20-00-5.16 - Appendices

Current through June 14, 2024
A. Appendix 1: Coastal Buffer Zone
				  Designations for the Residential Development
				  Zone
_________________________________________________________________
Lot size (square feet)
Required buffer width (feet) for development in
								  CRMC water types 3, 4, 5
Required construction setback (feet)
and 6.
< 10,000
15
25
10,000 - 20,000
25
25
20,001 - 40,000
50
25
40,001 - 60,000
75
25
60,001 - 80,000
100
25
80,001 - 200,000
125
25
> 200,000
150
25
B.
				  Appendix 2: Standard Coastal Buffer Width Requirements for Development within
				  the Metro Bay SAMP Boundary.
Lot size (square feet)
Required buffer width (feet)
[LESS THAN OR EQUAL] 20,000
25
20,001 - 40,000
50
40,001 - 60,000
75
60,001 - 80,000
100
[GREATER THAN] 80,000
150
C.
				  Appendix 3: Habitat Quality Ranking Criteria for High Priority Conservation and
				  Restoration Areas.
1. One of the phases of the
				  Metro Bay SAMP development process was to evaluate and classify open land
				  within the SAMP boundary that might be considered for future development or
				  redevelopment. Assessments were made without regard to property boundaries;
				  instead this analysis looked at continuous blocks of habitat which may have
				  contained more than one type of habitat. For example, one block might include a
				  forest, a freshwater shrub swamp, and fringing salt marsh. The value of land as
				  a biological community was the first consideration. Though many criteria could
				  have been used to rank parcels of land, this analysis focused on the maturity
				  and composition of the plant community as an index to habitat
				  quality.
2. The following flowchart
				  illustrates the ranking process for habitat quality. Please note that least
				  valuable habitat has a rank of "1", and more valuable habitats are indicated by
				  successively higher numbers.
Habitat Value
Poor
								  -------------------------------------------------------------------->Good
Vegetation Characteristics
Barren
<
All Exotic Vegetation
<
Mixture of Exotic and Native Vegetation
<
Mature Native Vegetation
Ranking
1
<
2
<
3
<
4
3.
				  Supplementary information was also considered: the habitat's use by wildlife as
				  observed during site visits or as previously noted by other biologists or
				  naturalists; the use by state or federally listed species (resident or
				  migratory); and the geographic relationship (linkage) of the parcels to other
				  habitat, or recognized conservation and recreational lands as identified in the
				  State Conservation and Recreational Openspace GIS data layer (Scorp90.shp). If
				  the existing habitat quality on a parcel of land was poor, its potential to be
				  restored and its importance if it were restored were considered. Good candidate
				  restoration sites would include barren lots in the center of an otherwise high
				  quality habitat corridor, sites that buffer important habitat or sites that
				  could eventually serve to lengthen a habitat corridor. Most restoration sites,
				  however, contained the lowest quality habitat and were therefore the least
				  important to conserve. In some cases isolated parcels were identified that were
				  vegetated with exotic species or isolated from other sites. These sites, while
				  ranking low in habitat quality, were important to residential communities for
				  scenic or recreational purposes. A separate ranking category was created for
				  these sites.
4. Habitat was
				  evaluated and ranked at 237 sites. Detailed field data were collected for 53
				  sites regarding species composition, dominant vegetation in the upper and
				  understory, and estimated basal diameter of largest trees and/or dominant
				  trees. An additional 63 sites were classified through "windshield surveys" that
				  assessed species composition and maturity. Using 1997 and 2002 aerial
				  orthophotos obtained from RIGIS, we classified habitat in the remaining 121
				  sites by photo-interpretation based on the visual signatures established during
				  site visits. Based on our findings we developed the following ranking system
				  for undeveloped lands in the Metro Bay SAMP area:
5. Conservation Zone
a. Sites with good habitat quality earmarked for
				  conservation
b. In most cases
				  native species are dominant
c. Rank:
(1) Vegetated with shrubby or small
				  trees
(2) Maturing woods or woody
				  fringe with most trees [LESS THAN OR EQUAL] 1ft diameter
(3) Mature system: woods with many trees
				  >1ft diameter, or emergent wetlands (salt marsh or fresh)
(4) Exceptional example of mature
				  ecosystem
6.
				  Restoration Zones
a. Potential site for
				  restoration
b. In most vegetated
				  areas exotic species are dominant
c. Rank:
(1)
				  Paved or barren - no vegetation
(2)
				  Partially vegetated with grass or shrubs
(3) Completely, or almost completely,
				  vegetated with grass, shrubs, or trees
7. Scenic or Recreation Zone
a. Significant unprotected lands
b. Native or exotic vegetation
c.  Rank:
(1) Mowed grass, may have shrubs, beside
				  highway - no safe access
(2)
				  Vegetated (green) patch in city neighborhood
(3) Vital scenic or recreational value -
				  contributes to character or identity of neighborhood
8. Linkage
a. Habitat and greenway linkage - examining
				  connectivity of wildlife habitat corridors or scenic/recreation areas
b. Rank:
(1) Isolated land (0)
(2) Land within 100 ft of other identified
				  links or the waterfront (1)
(3)
				  Land that meets at least one of the following criteria (2):
(AA) A "central link:" identified links
				  separated by no more than 100 ft from two other links, or one link and the
				  waterfront, or a link that has a perimeter more than 1/2 way surrounded by land
				  identified as a link
(BB) A link
				  within 100 ft of recognized conservation or recreational land (SCORP lands,
				  private preserves, land trust holdings), a link within 100 ft. of adjacent
				  links that connect it to recognized conservation or recreational
				  land.
(4) A central link
				  (defined in §
													5.16(C)(8)(b)
				  ((3))((AA)) of this Part) that forms part of a habitat corridor or potential
				  greenway containing recognized conservation or recreational lands (3)
9. Evaluation
a. Type of analysis at each site
b.  Rank:
(1) Photo-interpretation (2003 and 1997 RIGIS
				  orthophotos)
(2) "Windshield
				  survey" looking from outside in (1 and 2)
(3) Site visit (1, 2, and 3)