Executive Summary

Despite what the license plates say, Rhode Island is as much the Bay State as it is the Ocean State. Only 48 miles long and 37 miles wide, the state is dominated by Narragansett Bay, which occupies about a third of its total land area and carves out more than 400 miles of intricate shoreline, coves, and inlets. The Bay’s watershed extends deep into neighboring Massachusetts – over 60% of the drainage area is in that state. Massachusetts has shared the economic and environmental benefits derived from the rivers and lands of the watershed. And Mt. Hope Bay, fed by the Taunton River, is cut in half by the states’ boundary line. The Bay’s waters, shores, and sediments record hundreds of years of human activity -- often in the same location -- from the earliest Native American settlements to the birth of the industrial revolution to the digital workplaces of today.

Each wave of uses has left a legacy for good or ill on the land and in the Bay. Farming cleared forests, creating the beautiful rural landscapes so prized today, but also eroding the soil and destroying woodland habitats. Dammed rivers generated power that fueled an explosion of industrial activity, but in the process altered riparian habitats and doomed the passage of anadromous fish; that same industrial activity spurred enormous economic growth, but poured out a brew of toxic concoctions in the water, leaving a residue of contamination from which the ecosystem is still recovering. Docks built for yesterday’s merchant ships now struggle to accommodate cruise liners, oil tankers, and freighters, in uneasy tandem with visitors attracted by the history and charming scale of bayside towns and the sailing vessels of earlier times. Commercial harvest of oysters and scallops has essentially disappeared, and Rhode Island’s fishing fleets, so central to our history and self-image, are finding some of their most valuable catch harder and harder to find in the Bay.

The evolution of prevailing technologies and economies is mirrored in evolving patterns of land use, changing as the societies that create them change. Historically, agriculture was the dominant land use with population nodes in the cities and the remainder of the population scattered about the rural countryside and small villages. As manufacturing replaced agriculture, Rhode Islanders clustered evermore into the cities and towns that hosted the new industry. Since World War II, the economy has moved increasingly away from industries that generate significant pollution and towards a mix of service industries, specialized and niche businesses, high technology, and jobs that depend on high levels of environmental quality such as tourism and recreation. The enterprises of this new economy are not the smokestack and effluent dischargers we remember from the past. Instead, we find them near highway interchanges or in malls, and office parks, and new subdivisions. Their social and environmental impacts are stealthy, the effect of unplanned or inappropriate land uses and nonpoint pollutants generated from thousands of lawns, roads, and construction sites.

What are the land-use patterns associated with this latest transition and how will they affect the health of Narragansett Bay and our state’s future development?

Several major trends are immediately apparent:

Land development of all kinds-- residential, commercial, recreational, and industrial--

Page 1 of 42

has increased at a rate strikingly greater than population growth; Development for residential uses especially has increased disproportionately to

population growth; Population, industry, and employment are all shifting from urban centers to suburbs

and rural areas; The amount of land, primarily roads, dedicated to transportation has increased; and Much of the land developed has been in areas outside of current water and sewer

service areas.

In a word, people are using more land further from urban centers.

These trends are characteristic of the classic sprawl development of urban decline and suburban expansion, the net result of thousands of individual choices in lifestyle, housing, and transportation. Some of them emerge as citizens exercise a traditional American preference for rural living and single-family housing; others are fueled by policies that, deliberately or not, create social and financial incentives that promote new development over existing infrastructure. But in many cases, the unintended effect of our individual choices has been to reduce the options for future choices. Every farm excavated for a subdivision is lost from the rural landscape and reduces our enjoyment of unmanicured open space. Every road widened to accommodate commuter traffic increases incentives to travel by car and live where cars are a necessity and precludes investment in mass transit. Every business that relocates to a suburban office park abandons valuable infrastructure and a pool of urban workers to duplicate them at great cost in a new area and leave higher remaining costs in abandoned commercial areas.

By themselves, each of these actions can be negligible; thousands of them over time generate cumulative impacts that are far worse than the sum of their parts. Not only does increased automobile traffic cause air pollution, its supporting infrastructure – roads, parking lots, and other hard surfaces – contributes mightily to other problems as well. Pavement prevents rain and runoff from seeping slowly into the ground for filtration and groundwater recharge, and instead channels higher, faster volumes of stormwater off the land into streams and ponds, picking up a variety of pollutants on the way. Poorly sited subdivisions that rely on onsite wastewater disposal pose risks of pathogen contamination from failing septic systems and excess nitrogen loadings. Opening up previously inaccessible or rural areas with roads and residential developments fragments intact ecosystems, shrinking habitat and disturbing wildlife corridors critical for migration and breeding.

A significant percent of Rhode Island’s and Massachusetts’ rivers, lakes, and coastal waters already do not support key aquatic organisms or important uses such as fishing and swimming because of nonpoint sources of pollution generated in the lawns, roads, and parking lots of modern developments. And nearly half of river and lake waters, and almost a third of coastal waters, are threatened, meaning that in time, they too may not support such uses. Yet even as land uses and nonpoint sources increasingly influence the health of the Bay and the quality of life, our basic policy and management structures have not evolved to address them effectively. A single statistic captures the dilemma: more land was developed in Rhode Island between 1961 and 1995 than in all its 325 years before. Moreover, growth in the state’s non-urban areas during the last 7

Page 2 of 42

years has consumed more than 11,000 acres of forest and farmland. At current rates, Rhode Island will develop 25,000 to 30,000 new acres over the next 20 years -- the equivalent of spreading two more Providences across the state. Massachusetts has also experienced a rapid increase in land development over the same period.

Rural communities are not the only victims of sprawl; urban environments are endangered just as surely as rural areas. Rhode Island’s traditional cities and towns are decaying in response to widening belts of development. In 1900, Providence was a metropolis of 175,597, 20th among U.S. cities. But between 1940 and 1990, its population dropped from a peak of 253,504 to fewer than 161,000, one of the sharpest rates of loss in the country; seven years later, it reached a new low of approximately 151,000. Since 1980, East Providence, Warwick, Newport, Barrington, and Woonsocket have all lost population, and in the next 20 years, Central Falls and Pawtucket will likely join the list. Equally at risk are the urban “ring” communities – those towns specifically designed as suburbs for low density, low traffic development. Their infrastructure was never built for high road volume and commercial traffic, and is now overwhelmed by an incursion of new residents, strip malls, and industrial parks.

These current dispersion trends suggest that over time, employment centers will emerge more or less evenly across all parts of the state, making some suburban communities urban and some rural communities suburban. We can expect a very different, “homogenized” Rhode Island under this scenario, one that has lost special places or unique communities, with a degraded Bay ecosystem, and in a continuing race to catch up with the impacts on our towns and natural resources. And all of this will have happened largely by accident, in a hodgepodge of choices by private development and public investments in infrastructure such as roads, schools, and utilities.

This need not be the blueprint for the future, however. Rhode Island is recognized nationally for the strong management tools it offers to local communities, especially authority to manage development with respect to the natural and built environment. Three key features of Rhode Island’s land management framework are:

Recognition that land use decision-making is above all local, and that municipalities need ways to support local goals and implementation strategies, including the elusive but essential goals of preserving community character and sense of place;

Regulations that coordinate and integrate comprehensive planning, zoning, and land development requirements; decisions must be based upon goals and strategies of local comprehensive plans, and then zoning and land development regulations and decisions must be consistent with the plans; and

Acceptance that local and state goals/policies are mutually binding, an important incentive for communities to develop their own local comprehensive plans.

There has lately been an effort in Massachusetts to promote the enactment of a Statewide Comprehensive Planning System, a tool that many think would go a long way toward dealing with growth impacts in that state.

Until recently, we lacked the modeling, database and mapping tools necessary to look more broadly at the likely effects of development. New GIS technologies and computer capabilities now make it possible to project major impacts on a regional scale. With the

Page 3 of 42

help of these technologies, several communities are building on Rhode Island’s basic management framework to launch regional efforts (even across state lines) to protect shared water resources and open space. But even with the advantages offered by Rhode Island’s advanced planning frameworks, some issues remain intractable. Especially difficult is the tension between the fundamental American philosophy to keep decision-making at the most local level possible and the public interest in protecting resources and values that transcend political boundaries. Another disconnect is our tendency to think in terms of short-term cost against long-term benefits.

Organizations and citizens have articulated the need to act now so that we may avoid a future of sprawl development and impacts to the Bay ecosystem beyond its capacity to absorb. As older industries leave or re-create themselves, newer uses of the Bay are increasing their share to the local economy. Current estimates calculate the Bay in 1998 alone generated $2.5 billion from travel and tourism, and directly or indirectly supported 4900 businesses, 33,000 jobs, and $500 million in wages. The essential element for much of these economic gains is the “quality of life” implied by the coastal watershed’s beautiful scenery, array of lakes, rivers, and coastal waters, and unique New England ambiance of human-scale historical villages and lively urban neighborhoods.

Access to the Bay is a fiercely preserved Rhode Island tradition and fosters a uniquely broad sense of ownership and care. Closeness does make the heart grow fonder. When asked what they like about their state in a recent survey, respondents topped the list with beaches, ocean, scenery, size, and a sense of community. Priorities merged with preferences when they said their top concerns were cleaning Narragansett Bay, along with protecting drinking water, improving the quality of life, and keeping taxes down. And despite the desire to control taxes, the respondents were also willing to foot the bill for their priorities. The same broad stewardship is evident in the citizen decision-makers running boards and commissions throughout the state.

A reporter for the Chicago Tribune marveled more than 125 years ago that Narragansett Bay “...which swallows nearly half the state, is, probably, take it all in all, the most magnificent sheet of water in the western world.” Rhode Island has a chance to keep it that way.

Page 4 of 42

Part I: Land Uses and Land Use Trends in the Narragansett Bay Watershed

Introduction

Despite what the license plates say, Rhode Island is as much the Bay State as it is the Ocean State. Only 48 miles long and 37 miles wide, the state is dominated by Narragansett Bay, which occupies about a third of its total land area and carves out more than 400 miles of intricate shoreline, coves, and inlets. The Bay’s watershed extends deep into neighboring Massachusetts – about 60% of the drainage area is in that state. Massachusetts has shared the economic and environmental benefits derived from the rivers and lands of the watershed. And Mt. Hope Bay, fed by the Taunton River, is cut in half by the states’ boundary line. The Bay’s waters, shores, and sediments record hundreds of years of human activity -- often in the same location -- from the earliest Native American settlements to the birth of the industrial revolution to the digital workplaces of today.

Each wave of uses has left a legacy for good or ill on the land and in the Bay. Farming cleared forests, creating the beautiful rural landscapes so prized today, but also eroding the soil and destroying woodland habitats. Dammed rivers generated power that fueled an explosion of industrial activity, but in the process altered riparian habitats and doomed the passage of anadromous fish; that same industrial activity spurred enormous economic growth, but poured out a brew of toxic concoctions in the water, leaving a residue of contamination from which the ecosystem is still recovering. Docks built for yesterday’s merchant ships now struggle to accommodate cruise liners, oil tankers, and freighters, in uneasy tandem with visitors attracted by the history and charming scale of bayside towns and the sailing vessels of earlier times. Commercial harvest of oysters and scallops has essentially disappeared, and the Bay’s fishing fleets, so central to our history and self-image, are finding some of their most valuable catch harder and harder to find in the Bay.

Current Land Use in the Bay Watershed

The evolution of prevailing technologies and economies is mirrored in evolving patterns of land use, changing as the societies that create them change. Historically, agriculture was the dominant land use with population nodes in the cities and the remainder of the population scattered about the rural countryside and small villages. As manufacturing replaced agriculture, Rhode Island and Massachusetts residents and waves of immigrants surged into the cities and towns that hosted the new industry, primarily along river systems that provided both power and transportation access. Textile mills, metal working, and jewelry manufacture were the economic engines of the time, and their legacy is found in the hundreds of abandoned mill buildings, small dams, and industrial facilities lining the watershed’s rivers.

Since World War II, the economy has moved increasingly away from industries that generate significant pollution and towards a mix of service industries, specialized and niche businesses, high technology, and jobs that depend on high levels of environmental quality such as tourism and recreation. The enterprises of this new economy don’t come with the dirty smokestacks and nasty effluent pipes we remember from the past. Instead, we find them near highway interchanges or in malls, office parks, and new

Page 5 of 42

subdivisions, drawn by public investments in utilities and roads. Their social and environmental impacts are stealthy and insidious, the effect of unplanned or inappropriate land uses and nonpoint pollutants generated from thousands of lawns, construction sites, parking lots, and roads.

What happens in the Bay watershed is virtually synonymous with statewide trends; i only four of Rhode Island’s thirty-nine cities and towns are located totally outside of the watershed of Narragansett Bay; another 55 communities exist in the Massachusetts section of the watershed. The story of their changing landscapes tells not of dramatic population growth but rather of significant population migration into new areas. Since 1970, Rhode Island’s population growth rate has been almost flat, even as land consumption has accelerated dramatically -- a perfect mirror of 50 years of urban decline and suburban expansion.

FIGURE 1

This pattern is remarkably similar in Massachusetts, which includes 61 percent of the Bay watershed. Trends tracked by the regional planning programs in Massachusetts mirror Rhode Island’s trends of 50 years of urban decline and suburban expansion. Since the 1970s, population growth in the watershed area has been essentially flat yet land consumption has accelerated dramatically. In southeastern Massachusetts, the amount of developed land is increasing at a rate of 4.1% a year to accommodate a population growth of 1.6%. One-third of that area’s open space and agricultural lands have been lost over the past thirty years. In the past thirty years, the populations of the region’s three largest cities have increased by only 3.6%, but the rest of the region has seen population grow by 80.9%. To add to the growth pressure, one billion dollars in new transportation improvements are scheduled for construction (rail line extensions and expansion projects for Rte. 44, Rte. 3, and Rte. 24).

Land-use Trends

What are the land-use patterns associated with this transition and how will they affect the health of Narragansett Bay and future development in Rhode Island and Massachusetts?

Several major trends are immediately apparent:

land development of all kinds-- residential, commercial, recreational, and industrial-- has increased at a rate strikingly greater than population growth;

development for residential uses especially has increased disproportionately to population growth; and

the amount of land, primarily roads, dedicated to transportation has increased, as has the number of cars and amount of time spent commuting.

Land development of all kinds-- residential, commercial, recreational, and industrial-- has increased at a rate strikingly greater than population growth

Table 1: Land Use Comparison for 1970, 1988, and 1995

Page 6 of 42

LAND USE/TYPE 1970 1970 1988 198

8 1995 1995chang

e‘70-‘9

5(in

acres)%

Total(in

acres)%

Total(in

acres)%

Total%

Increase

Residential 89,142 12.8 129,002 18.7 138,632 20.0 +55.5

Commercial 7,050 1.0 12,553 1.8 13,224 1.9 +87.6Industrial 5,344 0.8 7,231 1.0 8,588 1.2 +60.7Commercial/Industrial Mixed n/a n/a 1,427 0.2 1,501 0.2 +5.2

Roadsii 5,483 0.8 6,277 0.9 6,518 0.9 +18.9Transportation & Utilitiesiii 6,414 1.0 6,826 1.0 6,847 1.0 +6.7Developed Recreationiv 9,624 1.4 12,276 1.8 12,447 1.8 +29.3Institutions & Cemeteries 10,012 1.4 11,374 1.6 10,665 1.5 +6.5

Urban Vacantv 5,780 0.8 5,679 0.8 4,388 0.6 -24.0Gravel Pits &Quarries 3,328 0.5 5,378 0.8 5,363 0.8 +61.1

Waste Disposal 1,380 0.2 2,611 0.4 2,795 0.4 +102Total Developed

143,557 20.7 200,63

4 29.0 210,968 30.5 +47.0

Forest 410,640 59.2 310,85

6 44.9 301,026 43.6 -26.7

Agriculture 62,120 9.0 50,583 7.3 49,094 7.1 -21.0Barren, Brush, Water, Wetlands, and Other Undevelopedvi

77,643 11.1 129,519 18.8 130,124 18.8

Total Undeveloped

550,403 79.3 490,95

8 71.0 480,244 69.5 -12.8

Total State Acres693,960

691,610

691,212

Source: RI Statewide Planning Program, Land Use Trends in Rhode Island 1961 to 1988, Technical Paper 146. July 1998

FIGURE 2

Development for residential uses especially has increased disproportionately to population growth

Page 7 of 42

What is true about development overall is even more dramatic for residential development. Between 1970 and 1995, the state added two units of housing for every one new addition to the population!vii Reasons for this are complicated. Factors include demographic trends such as smaller households, more elderly persons living independently, and economic trends such as the building boom of the mid-1980’s.

Though a distant second in terms of the number of acres, trends in commercial development are also striking for several reasons. First, commercial development increased 87.6% compared to 55.5% for residential development from 1970 to 1995. During the same period, population increased by only 5%. Second, the amount of impervious surface required by commercial developments is disproportionate to the relative amount of acres consumed. Simply stated, commercial development is predominately paved and therefore can have significant ecosystem impacts. It is also highly visible. Typically located along major roadways, these developments contain acres of pavement and stark big box retail buildings. This is the image the general public most often associates with sprawl.

The amount of land dedicated to transportation has increased, as has the number of cars and the amount of time spent commuting

The out-migration from the cities, largely enabled by the automobile, changed the map of Rhode Island. The population shift toward suburban and rural municipalities caused significant growth in many individual communities, and that growth was “driven” by the availability of cars to carry commuters back and forth, and the roads to carry the cars. Suburban roads were originally designed for light local traffic. The new pattern of commuting substantial distances between residence and job soon exceeded their capacity to handle the traffic load safely and efficiently. Additionally, suburbanites continued to take advantage of other trip-generating aspects of the urban environment such as educational institutions, stores, and cultural events. Commercial enterprises followed populations moving to suburban and rural communities. Roads became commercial strips for retail business. Successful suburban businesses became new trip-generators, adding to the pressure for new and/or improved roads.

These cumulative impacts were in part the unintended consequence of a growth pattern that favored single-family housing isolated from commercial uses and leaving residents with no real alternative to driving. Without any fixed rail network to concentrate development, Rhode Island has been particularly vulnerable to this symptom of sprawl. Population has spread away from the traditional bus network and into areas without a tradition or history of bus service, making people increasingly dependent on their cars for travel to and from work, school, recreation, entertainment, and the other activities of modern life. While bikeways and ferries are sometimes cited as potential alternatives to the automobile and there has been progress on this front, to date only a minute percentage of commuters use these methods of travel. Convenience, time and cost will be the determining factors in the success of these alternative methods of travel.

Page 8 of 42

Tight feedback between population shifts and enabling transportation makes it difficult to tease out the original impetus for out-migration. But there is no doubt that roads, especially interstate highways and major state connectors, are powerful catalysts for growth; nor is there any doubt that there are constituencies, inside and outside of government, that support continued highway expansion. Although construction of I-95, I-195, and I-295 was completed by 1975, construction and/or expansion of other roads continued briskly through the mid-1980s. The resulting swath of development is clear on current maps, tracking I-95 from southeastern Connecticut through Rhode Island and up into southeastern Massachusetts. The same phenomenon holds for I-295 and, in Massachusetts, I-195 and I-495. Figure 4 illustrates the rate of development that has converted forest and field to homesites and commercial and industrial developments. Note that many of the communities with the highest conversion rates are located in the Bay watershed. They also form a ring of development that clearly shows the impact of Route 495 on suburban and rural areas in Massachusetts.

Until recently, however, the overall impacts of these public investments in infrastructure were little explored. Transportation planners lacked the modeling and mapping tools necessary to consider the effects of transportation scenarios, or analyze public and private costs and benefits. New GIS technologies and computer capabilities now make it possible to project major impacts on a regional scale. Transportation analysts and economists have conducted research into traffic congestion, its causes and effects, and have come to some conclusions regarding market-based ways to attempt to alleviate this problem.

Figure 6 displays the growth in miles of R.I. public roads over time. All public roadways, including interstates, state highways, and local roads, are represented in the totals, which for this analysis include: 72 miles of interstate highways, 1,200 miles of State roads 1,700 miles of local streets. While the amount of land dedicated to roads and highways has increased only modestly, the real story is what is happening on those roads – the tremendous increase in the number of vehicles and miles driven and the mobility and accessibility these roads have brought to suburban and rural communities.

POP SHIFT AND EMPLOYMENT SHIFT FIGURES

Current dispersion trends suggest that over time, employment centers will emerge more or less evenly across all parts of the state, making some suburban communities urban and some currently rural communities suburban. We can expect a very different, “homogenized” Rhode Island under this scenario, one that has lost special places or unique communities, and is in a continuing race to catch up with the impacts on our towns and natural resources. And all of this will have happened largely by accident, in a hodgepodge of choices by private development and public investments in infrastructure such as roads, schools, and utilities.

These trends are characteristic of the classic sprawl development of urban decline and suburban expansion, the net result of thousands of individual choices in lifestyle, housing, and transportation. Some of them emerge as citizens exercise a traditional American preference for rural living and single-family housing; others are fueled by policies that, deliberately or not, create social and financial incentives that promote new development over existing infrastructure. But in many cases, the unintended

Page 9 of 42

effect of our individual choices has been to reduce the options for future choices. Every farm excavated for a subdivision is lost from the rural landscape and reduces our enjoyment of un-manicured open space. Every road widened to accommodate commuter traffic increases incentives to travel by car and live where cars are a necessity and precludes investment in mass transit. Every business that relocates to a suburban office park abandons valuable infrastructure and a pool of urban workers to duplicate them at great cost in a new area and leave higher remaining costs in abandoned commercial areas. Vacant urban commercial and industrial space has increased significantly over time; a recent Providence Journal article noted that R.I. has “an unenviable boast: 4.6 million square feet of vacant space in existing urban buildings.viii”

By themselves, each of these actions can be negligible; thousands of them over time generate cumulative impacts that are far worse than the sum of their parts. Not only does increased automobile traffic cause air pollution, its supporting infrastructure – roads, parking lots, and other hard surfaces – contributes mightily to other problems as well. Pavement prevents rain and runoff from seeping slowly into the ground for filtration and groundwater recharge, and instead channels higher, faster volumes of stormwater off the land into streams and ponds, picking up a variety of pollutants on the way. Poorly sited subdivisions that rely on onsite wastewater disposal pose risks of pathogen contamination from failing septic systems and excess nitrogen loadings. Opening up previously inaccessible or rural areas with roads and residential developments fragments intact ecosystems, shrinking habitat and disturbing wildlife corridors critical for migration and breeding.

Social and Economic Implications

A significant percent of Rhode Island’s rivers, lakes, and coastal waters already do not support key aquatic organisms or important uses such as fishing and swimming because of nonpoint sources of pollution generated in the lawns, roads, and parking lots of modern developments. And nearly half of river and lake waters, and almost a third of coastal waters, are threatened, meaning that in time, they too may not support such uses. Yet even as land uses and nonpoint sources increasingly influence the health of the Bay and the quality of life, our basic policy and management structures have not evolved to address them effectively. A single statistic captures the dilemma: more land was developed in Rhode Island between 1961 and 1995 than in all its 325 years before. Moreover, growth in the state’s non-urban areas during the last 7 years has consumed more than 11,000 acres of forest and farmland. At current rates, Rhode Island will develop 25,000 to 30,000 new acres over the next 20 years -- the equivalent of spreading two more Providences over the state.

Rural communities are not the only victims of sprawl; urban environments are endangered just as surely as rural areas. Rhode Island’s traditional cities and towns are decaying in response to widening belts of development. In 1900, Providence was a metropolis of 175,597, 20th among U.S. cities. But between 1940 and 1990, its population bled from a peak of 253,504 to fewer than 161,000, one of the sharpest rates of loss in the country; seven years later, it reached a new low of approximately 151,000. Since 1980, East Providence, Warwick, Newport, Barrington, and Woonsocket have all lost population, and in the next 20 years, Central Falls and

Page 10 of 42

Pawtucket will likely join the list. Massachusetts cities like Worcester and Taunton have experienced similar declines. Equally at risk are the urban “ring” communities – those towns specifically designed as suburbs for low density, low traffic development. Their infrastructure was never built for high road volume and commercial traffic, and is now overwhelmed by an incursion of new residents, strip malls, and industrial parks.

RIPEC has summarized the equity implications of continued sprawl for Rhode Island’s cities as follows:

In 1990 approximately 51.5 percent of the total property value was located in the State's ten urban communities with the 48.5 percent balance in non-urban communities. In FY 2000, 46.4 percent of the statewide-full value is estimated to be located in the urban communities and 53.6 percent in non-urban communities.

Of the ten highest effective property tax rates in Rhode Island, eight are in urban communities

Eleven Rhode Island communities demonstrate at least some level of local fiscal stress (measured by the Equity Index) as expressed by their ability to generate property tax revenues relative to the rest of the State; four of the 11 (Central Falls, Pawtucket, Providence and Woonsocket) had an Equity Index of less than 0.50, indicating significant fiscal stress relative to the rest of the State.

Page 11 of 42

Part II: Environmental Impacts on the Bay Ecosystem

Sprawling land uses lead to fragmented forests and wetlands and degraded habitats, and bring about increased air and water pollution. A significant percent of Rhode Island’s and eastern Massachusetts’ rivers, lakes, and coastal waters already do not support basic aquatic organisms or uses such as fishing and swimming because of nonpoint sources of pollution generated in the lawns, roads, and parking lots of modern developments. And nearly half of river and lake waters, and almost a third of coastal waters, are threatened, meaning that in time, they too may not support such uses.

Issues of Concern for the Bay Ecosystem

Excess Nutrients: Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) occur naturally and are necessary to support a health ecosystem. However, when nutrient levels are excessive, they start a chain of actions that are harmful to freshwater and estuarine communities – this process is called eutrophication. Algae growth is stimulated by excess nutrients. These algae die and settle to the bottom to decay. The decomposition process robs the water of dissolved oxygen. When oxygen levels are very low (hypoxic) or depleted (anoxic), there are serious impacts on bay organisms. Fish and other organisms cannot survive in these conditions; those who can, leave impacted areas, others which do not possess the mobility to escape, die off, sometimes in concentrated fish kills. It may only take one or two severe low- or no-oxygen events to decimate a species – if you can’t breathe, you can’t live. There can also be a shift from many larger, long-lived benthic species to fewer smaller and shorter-lived opportunistic species; from desirable to less desirable but more pollution-tolerant species. It is also thought that impacts from low dissolved oxygen and water clarity can compromise the immune systems of bay organisms, causing increased incidence of disease in fish, crabs and other invertebrates. Valuable seagrasses, a critical estuarine habitat, are sensitive to reductions in light penetration caused by increased algae production. The grasses die off or are weakened, affecting fish and shellfish that rely on them for shelter, food and nursery areas. Additionally, algae die-offs create foul smells and poor aesthetic values. Toxic red tide algae blooms have also been linked to increased incidence of anoxic or hypoxic events.

There has been a growing recognition that excess nutrients are a critical problem in our estuaries. A report released by the National Academy of Sciences on April 4, 2000, concluded that the problem of coastal pollution from nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers is so severe that states require federal help ix. In the report, Robert Howarth, professor of ecology at Cornell University, stated that, “conditions in many coastal areas are expected to worsen unless action is taken now to reduce nutrient pollution.” The report noted that there is very little federal regulation on nutrient inputs to waterbodies.

Page 12 of 42

Toxic Chemicals: The toxic chemicals that are of greatest concern in the estuarine environment are toxic metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Many of these types of chemicals collect in sediments. Benthic (or bottom-dwelling) organisms become exposed to these chemicals and provide entry for them into the food chain. Benthic communities in identified “hot spots” have shown altered and reduced populations and toxic contaminants have caused disease in fish. This has led to health advisories regarding fish consumption and closed shellfish beds and other fisheries. A number of these contaminants have been shown to have serious human health effects, from cancer to nerve damage.

Pathogens: Pathogens are bacteria and viruses that are harmful to human health. Those commonly found in estuarine waters cause gastroenteritis, salmonellosis, and hepatitis A. Bay monitoring programs for shellfish beds commonly use fecal coliform bacteria as an indicator organism for pathogens. When over certain standards, pathogen contamination results in closed shellfishing areas and swimming beaches, usually in areas closest to embayments or tributaries where pathogen sources are the greatest and water exchange is limited.

Habitat Loss and Degradation: Many of America’s estuaries have experienced significant loss of habitat areas and in many areas a steady decline continues. Human activities have generally been the cause of habitat loss and degradation and can be attributed to population growth in coastal areas. The same areas that are attractive to human residents are important habitats that provide food, shelter, migratory corridors, and breeding and nursery areas for many coastal and marine organisms. Habitat loss can negatively impact commercial and recreational fisheries, alterations in waterfowl populations, reduction in areas that treat and filter pollution, and a decreased ability to buffer storm and wave energy. Habitats have also been degraded in structure, function and composition. The continued health and biodiversity of estuarine systems depends on the maintenance of high quality habitat.

Declines in Fish and Wildlife: Fragmentation and loss of habitat areas, pollution and decreased water quality, overexploitation of resources, and introduction of non-native species has caused declines in fish and wildlife populations in our estuaries. As coastal populations increase, many species cannot survive in a habitat that has been altered and degraded by human activity.

Introduced Species: Introduced species have been responsible for the elimination of native species by either predation or by out-competing the native species for food and habitat. This has caused fundamental changes in the food web in many estuaries. One well-known introduced species is the zebra mussel – a bivalve that multiplies rapidly and attaches by the thousands to shoreline structures and intake pipes causing a significant economic burden for power generators and industries. Some introduced species target coastal marshlands as food sources, severely degrading and destroying marshes. Other species can alter water tables, affect soil productivity, increase erosion, and interfere with recreational and commercial fishing, agricultural irrigation, boating and beach use.

Transportation Impacts

Page 13 of 42

In 1960, there were 340,598 motor vehicles registered in Rhode Island. In 1997, there were 709,680, an increase of 108%. In the same period, the state’s population grew by less than 15 %x.

Land use issues and transportation issues are two sides of the same coin: they are so inextricably bound together that you cannot discuss one without discussing the other. As the population has increasingly spread out over previously undeveloped land away from urban centers, the land use patterns of the Bay watershed have spurred development of an increasingly decentralized road network and have been a factor in the increasing the annual average mileage that residents drive. This expansion of number of vehicles and miles driven have created a situation in which more ecosystem impacts are felt.

Urban Runoff: It has been shown that highways and road contribute a wide range of pollutants to ecosystems via urban runoff. Among the contaminants from this land use are heavy metals (copper, lead, zinc most common), bacteria, hydrocarbons, sediments and salt. Metals and hydrocarbons attach to sediment particles and it has been estimated that one mile of curb area on an average road collects over 1,400 pounds of sediment on an annual basis; a good deal of this sand and gravel is washed into streams, ponds and embayments. The higher water runoff rates associated with impervious roadways causes erosion, flood hazards and affect watershed streamflow patterns.

Studies done in the 1980s in Rhode Island showed that state highways contributed 77% of the zinc, 66% of the lead, 39% of cadmium and 36% of copper inputs to the Pawtuxet River, a river that starts in the forests of central western Rhode Island but then winds through several miles of highly urbanized areas, crisscrossed by many roads and highwaysxi. The impermeable surfaces of roads, highways and parking lots collect these toxic substances, along with pathogens and nutrients, and funnel them into storm drain systems that enter water systems and, eventually, the Bay. Impervious area reduces the amount of water available to recharge groundwater aquifers and increases the volume of surface runoff. The U.S. EPA considers watersheds that contain greater than 15% impervious area as beginning to suffer negative ecological effects.

Vehicle Emissions: Automobile and truck emissions contain compounds that increase ground level ozone concentrations and the greater R.I. area is in non-attainment of federal standards for ozone. High concentrations of ozone irritate the human respiratory system, especially in the elderly and very young. Additionally, the particulates (again with greater impacts on the young, old and those with respiratory conditions) contained in emissions have been linked to increased disease and mortality. An ecological impact of vehicle emissions is on the Bay itself – emissions contain a form of nitrogen, a nutrient that increases eutrophication (see previous Excess Nutrients section) of marine waterbodies. While studies on nutrient loading from air deposition on the Bay have not been completed, the Chesapeake Bay estuary, also downwind of the Midwest coal-burning power plants and in areas of traffic congestion, receives over 25% of nutrients from air deposition. Another environmental impact of vehicle emissions is contributing to the “greenhouse” effect in the Earth’s atmosphere.

Page 14 of 42

Highways, Sprawl and Traffic: Where and when highway systems and improvements are constructed have a direct impact on land development patterns. Our extensive federal and state highway system made it possible for people to move out of the cities and to establish suburban communities far enough from the noise and congestion of the city but close enough to provide a reasonable commute time. Highway intersections become commercial nodes, large volumes of traffic attracting large-scale retail operations. Communities vying to bring in commercial development to offset tax increases necessitated by increased residential development offer incentives to these retail interests. These traffic generators attract other traffic generators and soon congestion and delay are evident. Roads are widened and extended and induce even more traffic.

Transportation economics research indicates that the usual remedy for traffic congestion – expanding current road systems – is ineffective and can even be counter-productive; in other words, you may not be able to “build your way out” of traffic congestion. The Transportation Research Board recently presented studies by independent academics and U.S. government analysts indicating that creating new road capacity by building new roads or widening existing highways does not reduce highway congestion. Studies showed that every 10% increase in highway capacity produces a 2% to 6% increase in traffic over a five year period following the increase in capacity. Other studies have concluded that increased capacity means reduced commuting time; this attracts traffic until the time saved is reduced by congestionxii. An area with new or expanded road systems attracts commercial and residential development adding to traffic congestion. Some traffic management of this situation is possible through pricing policies (tolls for special lanes at rush hours) but these raise questions regarding equity and fairness in the use of publicy-funded infrastructure. A study analyzing highway capacity and growth in vehicle mileage done by the Transportation Research Board concluded that, “recognizing the links between highway capacity, the difficulties in reducing congestion through these [expansion] projects, and their potential sprawl-inducing impacts, will require a radical change in federal transportation policy if a more sustainable outcome is desired.xiii”

The Surface Transportation Policy Project, analyzing data from studies by the Texas Transportation Institute, indicated that, nationally, as much as 69% of the growth in driving between 1983 and 1990 was caused by factors influenced by sprawlxiv. Population growth was considered to be responsible for only 13% of growth in driving. The factors include the same people driving farther, as well as a decrease in carpooling and a switch from biking, walking, or transit to driving. These changes are in part necessitated by the spread of subdivisions and office parks isolated from stores and schools. Residents can have real difficulty finding viable alternatives to driving. One of the unintended consequences of this growth pattern has been a steadily growing number of vehicle trips that has served to clog local streets and freeways with traffic and increasingly frustrate residents and workers.

While the economics of the road system we use are important and drive changes in the system and patterns of development, the underlying ecological issue is the impact those changes have had, are having and will have on the Bay. When the loss of wetlands and forested and vegetative land cover (the natural systems that filter out pollutants) are

Page 15 of 42

combined with the spread of roads, development and population, the result is greater stress to the Bay watershed ecosystem.

Table 2: Land Use/Transportation Impacts on Ecosystems

NPS Pollutant:Associated Land

Uses

Impacts

SEDIMENT:Construction, urban/road runoff, gravel operations, agriculture, logging, hydromodification

On Fisheries Decreases light transmission, affecting plant

production (food and cover), behavioral activities (nesting, feeding, mating), respiration, digestion, reproduction

Increases surface water temperature, which decreases dissolved oxygen concentration in water

Decreases spawning habitat (fills pools and nest sites)

Transports adsorbed contaminantsOn Wetlands Reduces flood storage Increases peak discharges Alters habitat, allows aggressive invasive species to

enterOn Recreation Decreases water clarity Reduces aesthetic and recreational value Reduces sport fishing populationsOn Water Supply Damages water treatment pumps, equipment Increases treatment costs Reduces reservoir volume Toxic substances adhere to sediment Nutrient enrichment stimulates algae growth

NUTRIENTS (nitrogen and phosphorus):Urban development, gravel operations, agriculture, land disposal (septic systems), fertilizers, illegal waste disposal, pet and waterfowl waste

On Fisheries Promotes algae blooms which inhibit aquatic plant

growth Favors survival of less desirable species over more

desirable commercial and recreational Reduces dissolved oxygen levels through increased

productivity and decaying of organic materialOn Wetlands Alters wetland vegetation/habitatOn Recreation Promotes eutrophication of lakes, rivers,

embayments

Page 16 of 42

Increases algae growth, possible health risks from harmful algae

Decreases aesthetic value Degrades fishing and boating activities Reduces tourism and property valuesOn Water Supply Promotes algae blooms, which cause odors and poor

taste Increases treatment costs Increases safe nitrate concentration (currently used

safe limit is 10 mg/l)METALS:Urban/road runoff, mining, land disposal, natural deposits

METALS: (cont.)Urban/road runoff, mining, land disposal, natural deposits

On Fisheries Bioaccumulates in fish tissue Accumulates in sediment, posing risk to bottom

feeders Affects reproductive rates and aquatic organism life

spans Hinders photosynthesis in aquatic plantsOn Wetlands Bioaccumulates in existing food web Hinders photosynthesis in aquatic plants Affects reproductive rates and aquatic organism life

spansOn Recreation Restricts sport fishing if contamination is found in

fish tissueOn Water Supply Increases treatment costs Forms deposits in pipes, reducing carrying capacity Colors water, leaving stains on fixtures & clothing Poses possible health risks from toxic metals

PESTICIDES & HERBICIDES:Agriculture, urban runoff, hydrologic/habitat modification, lawn products

On Fisheries Bioaccumulates in fish tissue Accumulates in sediment, posing risk to bottom

feeders Affects reproductive rates and aquatic organism life

spans Can cause fish and other organism kills if

concentrations high enough Hinders photosynthesis in aquatic plantsOn Wetlands Adversely impacts survival of wetland fauna and

floraOn Recreation

Page 17 of 42

Restricts sport fishing if found in fish tissueOn Water Supply Carcinogenic effects cause public health risks

PATHOGENS – BACTERIA AND VIRUSES:Agriculture, urban runoff, land disposal (septic tanks & illegal waste disposal), pet and waterfowl waste

On Fisheries Introduces disease-bearing organisms to aquatic life Shellfish area closuresOn Wetlands Results in loss of wetland recreational areas Introduces harmful organisms to aquatic life and

food chainOn Recreation Swimming area closuresOn Water Supply Increases public health risks Increases treatment costs for drinking water

suppliesTHERMAL ENERGY:Construction, power generation, gravel operations, agriculture, urban runoff, hydrologic/ habitat modification

On Fisheries Reduces vigor, growth & reproductive success of

fish Reduces resistance to disease Reduces dissolved oxygen as waterbody

temperature increases Changes cold water sport fishery to warm water

fisheryOn Recreation May stimulate growth of algae and aquatic plants,

which reduce water clarity, aesthetic value, sport fishing populations and tourism

On Water Supply Increased temperature accelerates pump/equipment

corrosion Promotes biological activity which produces odor

and poor taste Creates a more favorable environment for

pathogensSALTS:Urban/road runoff, mining, construction, road de-icing

On Fisheries Favors salt-tolerant species Fluctuations in salinity create stressful environment Destroys habitat and food source plants for some

species

On Wetlands Alters wetlands vegetation/species composition

Page 18 of 42

SALTS (cont.):Urban/road runoff, mining, construction, road de-icing

Destroys habitat and food sources for wetland animals

On Recreation May cause skin/eye irritationOn Water Supply Reduces drinking water quality

ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION OF POLLUTANTS:Car and truck exhaust, power generation, small engine exhaust

On Human Health Increased ozone levels cause respiratory problems;

RI currently in non-attainment of ozone standards Increased particulates concentrations linked to

disease and mortality; increasingly seen as major health issue

On Waterbodies/Ecosystems Nutrient loading accelerates eutrophication of fresh

and salt waterbodies Toxics pathway to food chain (mercury & lead);

bioaccumulation Acid rain effect; alters natural pH balances; some

species non-tolerant Adverse impacts from chemicals on sensitive plant

speciesOn Water Supply Introduction of toxics to water supply systems Increased treatment costsOn Recreation/Property Eutrophication impacts; loss of water clarity, algae

growth Impacts on health of sport fishing species Corrosive effect of airborne chemicals (NOX, SOX)

damages property Crop damage from chemical impacts

Adapted from the report, Nonpoint Source Pollution: A Handbook for Local Governments. by the American Planning Association’s Research Dept. and Horsley & Witten, Inc. Chicago, IL 1997. Produced for the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program and the RIDEM Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program.

Page 19 of 42

Part III: Land Use Management Framework

Introduction

Land use decision-making is private and local stemming from the social, political, legal tenets of American culture in general and New England in particular. The regulation of land use often mirrors the tension between individual rights to own and derive economic benefit from property ownership and the public interest in property for resource protection, open space, recreation, government and institutional uses, to name a few. The nineties have proven, in the words of the former Chief of Statewide Planning, Daniel Varin, to be “A Lively Experiment” as new laws, increased technological capacity, and regional collaboration reflect an increasing awareness of the need to manage growth in Rhode Island.

Regulatory Programs

Planning and Zoning Legislation – Consistency between State and Local Planning: New enabling statutes passed since 1988 have changed the regulatory environment for land use statewide, primarily by requiring clear linkages between each town’s mandated comprehensive plan and its implementing ordinances and regulations. One of the key strengths of these linkages is the structure it provides for towns to envision their futures beyond mere zoning to an outline of the community character and a sense of place they hope to preserve. For example, the majority of Rhode Island’s local Comprehensive plans document the natural and built resources, such as unique historic structures or loved scenic vistas, that define their communities; these resources are then further addressed through land development regulations that require their preservation, and through zoning ordinances that provide for specific overlay districts. Many communities choose also to protect specific environmental qualities by adding overlays for groundwater and recharge areas, aquifers, flood hazard areas, and coastal features, or by providing for more stringent ISDS setbacks than those required by the state.

In addition, recognizing that sprawl and urban decline are two sides of the same coin, the state enacted legislation to spur the re-use of “brownfields” for commercial and industrial redevelopment. Brownfields are abandoned or underused industrial sites, often situated near population centers and transportation hubs. Developers and lenders find them unattractive because of cleanup costs and the potential for future environmental liabilities, yet their strategic locations could make them strong catalysts for revitalizing decaying cities and towns. The new legislation addresses the issue of financial responsibility for cleanup and offers special tax credits to encourage the use of older manufacturing buildings.

At their most basic level, the Comprehensive Planning Act, The Zoning Enabling Act, and the Land Development and Subdivision Review Act give communities new tools to manage growth. and encourage development patterns consistent with the natural and built environment. Three salient features of the regulations are:

Recognition that land use decision-making is above all local, and that municipalities need ways to support local goals and implementation strategies,

Page 20 of 42

including the elusive but essential goals of preserving community character and sense of place;

Page 21 of 42

The updated planning and zoning laws encourage flexible zoning and land development techniques that begin with the natural characteristics of the land or the built environment. This approach can produce more sympathetic development which preserves open space, connects greenways or bikeways, and promotes mixed land uses reminiscent of historic village settlement patterns. Cities and towns can also stimulate more compact forms of development by adopting regulations that preserve scenic views, protect natural and historic features, share parking and access, and encourage alternate modes of transportation

Regulations that coordinate and integrate comprehensive planning, zoning, and land development requirements; decisions must be based upon goals and strategies of local comprehensive plans, and then zoning and land development regulations must be compatible with the plans

The framework for making decisions is based upon the prioritized goals and strategies of the local comprehensive plan. Zoning ordinances and land development regulations are revised to reflect and implement those priorities.

Acceptance that local and state goals/policies are mutually binding, an important incentive for communities to develop plans that are compliant with state policies and subsequently approved by the state consistent with statewide plans (e.g., state guide plan elements) and with the written goals and policies of state agencies. Controlling sprawl and dispersion, revitalizing older cities, encouraging compact development, preserving open space and natural resources, and promoting alternate modes of transportation are some of the recurrent themes in state goals and policies. Examples found in the State Guide Plan include:

Element 715: Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for the Narragansett Bay

Element 731: Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Plan Elements 721 and 722: Water Supply Policies and Water

Supply Plan Element 121: State Land Use Policies and Plan Element 125: Scituate Reservoir Watershed Management

Plan Element: 131: Cultural Heritage and Land Management Plan

for the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Element 155: A Greener PathGreenspace and Greenways

for Rhode Island’s Future Element 161 and 156: Forest Resources Management and

Urban Forestry plans Element 162: Rivers Policy and Classification Plan Element 171: Rhode Island Comprehensive Solid Waste

Management Plan

Page 22 of 42

Element 211 and 212: Economic Development Strategy and Industrial Land Use Plan

Elements 421 and 422: State and Area Housing plans Elements 611 and 620: Ground Transportation and

Transportation System Management plans

Once the local plans have been approved by the Department of Administration, then state agency actions must be consistent with local plans.

Municipal Use of Innovative Planning Techniques: Communities in both watershed states have used innovative land management techniques to address environmental and economic impacts of new development. Among such techniques in use are cluster development, creation of wastewater management districts, soil and erosion controls, flexible zoning, stormwater treatment facilities (also called best management practices or BMPs), development plan review processes that examine more closely the impacts of development, increased and more sophisticated use of geographic mapping programs, environmental overlay districts (for wetlands, groundwater, etc), environmental impact studies, and integration of transportation and community planning. Coastal communities have been more progressive in using these special planning tools.

Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) Permitting Program and Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs): CRMC is the state agency charged with regulating activities that occur within a designated coastal jurisdiction (200 feet inland from coastal features). The agency permits septic systems and wetlands alterations in designated coastal areas. It also regulates other activities such as installation of docks, marina construction and expansion, and coastal construction projects. The CRMC also develops Special Area Management Plans for coastal areas with special needs or features that require a coordinated management structure. These include areas like the Narrow River and Salt Pond regions in southern R.I. and the urbanized Providence River port area at the head of the Bay. SAMPs can place a higher level of restrictions on activities conducted in these areas.

Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program: In contrast to R.I. CRMC, this is a non-regulatory program whose policies are implemented through existing environmental regulations. There is a strong focus on planning and education for coastal residents and municipal officials.

Page 23 of 42

R.I. DEM Septic System Permitting Program: This permitting program regulates location, design and construction of septic systems and, in effect, acts a land management control. Because many areas of the state rely on septic systems (approximately 37% of residences) and/or private wells, regulations were developed to protect public health and environmental resources from septic system impacts. In Massachusetts, septic systems are regulated not by a state agency but by local Boards of Health.

R.I. DEM Freshwater Wetlands Permitting Program: Freshwater wetlands serve many beneficial functions to society. Though this program, the State of R.I. seeks to protect these valuable resource areas and to minimize or avoid impacts to wetlands from land activities. Again, due to protective setbacks required under this program, some aspects of land development are restricted. Unlike the state agency-based process in Rhode Island, Massachusetts relies on local Conservation Commissions to regulate freshwater wetlands under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act which allows appeal of local decisions to an appellate board. Also, in both states, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has regulatory authority under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act over the discharge (and excavation) of dredged or fill material in wetlands and other waters of the U.S.

Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act: Massachusetts created a review and approval process for large scale development that can have significant environment, traffic and economic impacts. It is linked to a legislative mandate requiring full environmental impact and often other impact studies for these large scale projects. Like the federal legislation it is derived from, it requires a consideration of alternative development scenarios and attempts to account for the cumulative impacts of development decisions.

NPDES Stormwater Phase II Rule: The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) is a regulatory scheme that, up until recently, dealt with only point source discharges (end-of-pipe) of pollutants. Recent changes to the program include an attempt to bring nonpoint sources of pollution under control. The Phase II Rule includes smaller communities into efforts to permit stormwater discharges. Communities will be required to inventory stormdrains and to work with state agencies to abate significant stormdrain-based sources of pollution.

Page 24 of 42

Governmental Watershed Assessment Programs

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program: Under Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act (CWA), each state monitors the quality of the states waters to determine whether they attain their water quality designations and issues reports every two years. Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, each sate establishes a list of waters not in attainment of their water quality designations and identifies priorities for remediation. State environmental agencies have been given a fixed amount of time to develop programs for all the water bodies not in attainment of their water quality standards. The Total Maximum Daily Load program is an intensive program to identify the sources of pollution in each watershed, determine how much pollutant loading the water body can receive, and identify potential actions to limit or reduce pollutant loads to the water body. The TMDL program will serve as a detailed assessment of point and nonpoint sources of pollution and potential mitigation measures that can be implemented under existing programs by existing organizations and agencies. TMDL studies require intensive data collection and modeling for each watershed, and involve public outreach to identify the problem and mitigation opportunities. In R.I., the only TMDL to be completed is the Stafford Pond watershed TMDL in Tiverton, in which agricultural and residential uses were determined to be major sources of nutrients (phosphorous), which led to eutrophication of the pond. TMDLs presently in process include Runnins River, Hunt River, Pettaquamscutt River, and Greenwich Bay. As in Tiverton, it is quite possible that mitigation measures could include land use controls or recommendations for best management practices at specific sites. Once a set of potential mitigation measures are identified, the TMDL program works with existing programs to implement an action plan.

Page 25 of 42

Source Water Area Protection, Wellhead Protection: The U.S. EPA has initiated a source water area protection program to identify land use risks to public water supplies and protect water supply watersheds through land acquisition. State and local departments of health are implementing this program. This program will integrate with the state Wellhead Protection Programs, which map recharge areas of public wells, restrict certain uses in recharge areas (e.g., underground storage tanks), and allow towns to designate wellhead protection zones with land use restrictions.

Watershed Planning Efforts

A number of intensive resource mapping and assessment projects are underway throughout the state and the Narragansett Bay watersheds to prioritize areas for restoration and preservation. Results from these efforts are incorporated on an ongoing basis in RIGIS. The information generated through such mapping exercises has greatly improved capabilities to identify critical habitats and open space needs. This knowledge is especially important to ensure the most effective use of funds made available through the state’s open space bond issues, including a $50 million bond issue on the November 2000 ballot. In Massachusetts, Governor Paul Celluci has vowed to protect 200,000 additional acres by 2010. This initiative is well underway; 37,000 acres were protected in 1999.

Based on the successes of using watershed approaches in other areas and recognizing the need to pool resources and work together, agencies, organizations and citizens are creating watershed-based partnerships, designed to use an inclusive stakeholder process to identify watershed problems and issues and to collaboratively develop solutions or strategies to address those problems. Many of the problems are related to land use; many of the solutions involve land management techniques and in all areas of the Bay’s watershed there is tremendous interest in achieving “smarter” growth. The efforts listed below do not constitute a full list of watershed-based efforts; there are many smaller, community-based efforts that are functioning and achieving resource protection and restoration goals.

Massachusetts Watershed Initiative: This partnership of local communities joined with state and federal agencies seeks to more effectively provide solutions for environmental problems in the state’s watersheds. Rapid growth and the challenge of tackling nonpoint source pollution problems have provided an

Page 26 of 42

impetus for partnership planning and action. The Initiative brings together government, business and citizen interests to prevent and repair pollution problems in backyards, local streams and neighborhoods. Massachusett’s twenty-nine watersheds have watershed teams (with full-time state-funded coordinators) that define problems and craft solutions for their watersheds. Massachusetts uses a five-year watershed cycle to assess problems, collect data, and create and implement collaborative solutions to environmental problems. Annual workplans are used to focus the partners’ work and to allow for evaluation of the process. Five of the state’s designated watersheds drain to Narragansett Bay.

Rhode Island’s Statewide Watershed Approach: Although the state started development of a statewide watershed approach several years later than Massachusetts, a similar gathering of governmental and nongovernmental organizations have been collaboratively developing the framework since 1997. Consensus has been reached on the functions of the approach including delivering technical assistance to local watersheds and providing a forum for communication and collaboration to meet local watershed needs. Using an existing broad-based stakeholder group of resource managers and nonprofits, the Partners for Resources Protection, the participants have developed a framework document and are in the process of refining how this cooperative approach will operate at both the state and local level.

Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission: Covering 350,000 acres in south-central Massachusetts and northern Rhode Island, this bi-state federally-supported program seeks to help communities balance economic development and protection of historic, cultural and environmental resources. The Commission has offered technical planning assistance and training seminars to municipal officials in the watershed. The program has recently acquired a River Navigator to help coordinate watershed activities.

Narragansett Bay Estuary Program: The Narragansett Bay Estuary Program (NBEP) is a watershed-based program within the R.I. Dept. of Environmental Management that is one of the 28 National Estuary Programs (NEPs) across the country. The NEPs, early pioneers in watershed management, have acted as laboratories for watershed management techniques and decision-making processes. Since 1993, the NBEP has been implementing the recommendations of the Narragansett Bay

Page 27 of 42

Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP), a stakeholder-created plan that addresses priority issues in the bay and watershed (shared with Massachusetts). Recommendations from the CCMP that addressed land management issues targeted abatement of nonpoint source pollution, options for governance structures for activities that affect the Bay ecosystem, management of impacts from septic systems and stormwater, and protection of critical environmental resource areas. The program has success in organizing collaborative workgroups to address Bay issues, focusing in particular on effective partnerships for estuarine habitat restoration.

Urban Rivers Team: Consisting of representatives of the U.S. EPA, state agencies and watershed organizations, this coalition is coordinating efforts to restore R.I.’s urban rivers. Priorities for the group include remediating brownfield sites, assessing extent of contamination, conducting river cleanups, educating residents, and riparian area restoration.

Runnins River Steering Committee: This bi-state initiative, formed in 1993, was created to address water quality problems in the Runnins River watershed. The river starts in Massachusetts, forms the border between the two states for a stretch and then empties in the Hundred Acre Cove, a productive and scenic estuarine system, highly valued by local residents, birders and shellfishermen.

Pawcatuck Watershed Partnership: This collaborative process brought together more than 40 organizations, government officials, and citizens to identify the issues and concerns most important to people working and living in the watershed. The Partnership has produced significant reports and surveys, has sponsored a municipal training program and educational activities, and has engaged in a number of important collaborative research projects to monitor and assess the state of the watershed. Involvement in the Partnership has reduced conflicts of interest between partners, has expanded funding opportunities for partnership members, and has increased access to agency resources and expertise.

Aquidneck Island Partnership: This effort is a public/private collaboration to promote environmental conservation that is compatible with a healthy economy for the Island’s three municipalities: Middletown, Newport and Portsmouth. The Partnership’s goal is to identify Islanders' common interests and

Page 28 of 42

implement activities that protect the Island’s unique character and quality of life. The Partnership is preparing a document that presents a vision of islanders’ hopes and concerns for the future, has provided municipal training workshops, is developing a growth management strategy, and has initiated a joint Transportation Improvement Program for the Island.

Woonasquatucket River Watershed Coalition: Formed to address the pressures on this urban/suburban river system, designated last year as an American Heritage River, this coalition consists of committed stakeholders who seek improved water quality, remediation of contaminated areas, expanded recreational opportunities for urban and suburban residents, and restoration of watershed resources.

Non-Governmental Organizations

Several nonprofit environmental advocacy organizations have been working to protect and enhance the watershed’s resources over the last three decades. Save The Bay, Inc., was born out of an effort to prevent the construction of an oil refinery on Conanicut Island (Jamestown) in Narragansett Bay. With a membership of 25,000, this NGO lobbies for environmental legislation, conducts education and outreach programs and is heavily involved in coastal habitat restoration actions. The R.I. Chapter of the Sierra Club has conducted an anti-sprawl campaign nationally and in Rhode Island. In recent years, the Sierra Club has become increasingly involved in Bay issues. Audubon Society organizations in both states have been very active in land preservation and restoration actions. Clean Water Action targets activities on water quality issues. Other organizations that have been in place for a number of years include the Narrow River Watershed Association and Friends of the Moshassuck. Massachusetts NGOs include watershed organizations such as the Palmer River Watershed Association.

Sustainable Development/Smart Growth Initiatives

These new efforts to bring data and dialogue to the often contentious growth management arena and have been applauded by governments, business interests and citizens alike. They have helped raise public awareness of the impacts of growth and the public costs (economic, environmental, and social) associated with our current land management policies. With funding and technical support from foundations, federal agencies (EPA,

Page 29 of 42

NOAA) and the respective state governments, these programs and organizations are providing valuable information and setting the stage for building collaborative solutions.

Grow Smart RI: This nonprofit organization, made up of members of businesses, state agencies, municipalities, housing and environmental groups, legislative staff and citizens, came into existence over the last two years to promote smart growth and land planning techniques that will preserve special places, community character and natural resources while enhancing economic development. In March 2000, Grow Smart RI released a report on the fiscal costs to the state’s growth patterns over the last half-century, noting that from 1961 to 1995, the state developed land at a rate nine times faster that population growth.

Southeastern Massachusetts Vision 2020 Initiative and The Development Framework – 2020 Growth Strategy for Central Massachusetts: With already accelerated growth occurring in many Massachusetts communities and the extension of new and extended commuter rail lines into southeastern and central Massachusetts and improved highway links, regional planning agencies in that state embarked on initiatives to address uncontrolled sprawl and to improve the capacity of the communities to manage the rapid changes that are occurring. These efforts are intended to make choices and lay out clear visions for community and regional growth. Missions include fostering sustainable economic growth while protecting natural resources and regional character and quality of life. Goals for the Central Massachusetts initiative include promoting the enactment of a statewide comprehensive planning system, ensuring consistency of local decisions with state and regional investment plans, promoting local use of cluster development, creation of a compact growth manual for planning boards, taking inventory of natural resource areas for protection or acquisition, and creating a clearinghouse for regional information for use by planning boards and citizens.

These efforts are being carried out under the Massachusetts Community Preservation Initiative (CPI). The CPI seeks to bring together the need to plan for economic growth with both environmental and affordable housing components. It is intended to respect the capacity of local advocacy and municipal governments to work in partnership with state government agencies to address these issues. The CPI is providing the tools

Page 30 of 42

to assist municipalities in dealing with growth effects, focusing first in southeastern Massachusetts.

Southeastern Massachusetts is experiencing rapid growth and all 51 communities have come together to focus on regional growth management concerns through the issuance of the Vision 2020 Plan in Summer 1999. The Commonwealth provided funding for the regional planning agencies to develop build-out analyses for each of the 51 communities in southeastern Massachusetts by July 1, 2000, and will complete build-outs for all 351 communities within the next year. The next steps will be to develop appropriate land use management and transportation measures in light of the build-out analyses and Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation & Construction (EOTC) and the Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) are actively supporting this effort. Executive Order 418 signed in January 2000, directs towns to develop land use, transportation, and housing plans to address growth. In order to help communities complete these plans, EOEA, EOTC and DHCD are providing each municipality up to $30,000 to purchase planning services such as environmental assessment, targeted open space and economic development zones, and transportation consultants.

The Community Preservation Act is another way municipalities can create and maintain a steady stream of funding to acquire open space, preserve historic structures and landscapes, and provide affordable housing. Originally sponsored by Secretary Durand when he was a Senator, The CPA has been passed by both the House and the Senate and is now in conference committee. The Act would allow communities to create a Community Preservation Fund by ballot referendum. The Fund would require at least 10% of the monies raised to be distributed to each of the three categories: historic preservation, open space protection and affordable housing, allowing the community flexibility in distributing the majority of the money. EOEA supports financing the fund through a surcharge up to 3% of the property tax; the other method would be a fee collected when real estate is transferred.

R.I. Growth Planning Council: In February 2000, Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Almond appointed a Growth Planning Council to study land development patterns in the state. The 28-member council, created by Executive Order, will provide advice to state and local decision-makers on ways to plan that benefit both the economy and the environment. The council is charged

Page 31 of 42

with submitting an annual report on growth issues to the Governor. The council is intended to “encourage sustainable growth” and provide a mechanism for agencies and organizations to coordinate and collaborate in addressing growth and development issues.

Preservation of Open Space

Although the overall area of undeveloped land has declined (see Section II.), permanently preserved open space achieved through local, state, and federal initiatives, and through private land trusts (there are currently 36 land trusts in R.I. as well as many in Massachusetts) has increased. Protection comes from both the outright purchase of undeveloped land and by the acquisition of development rights (conservation easements). In Rhode Island, these lands, referred to as greenspace areas, comprise approximately 100,000 acres, or 14.5 percent of the state. The vast majority of open and undeveloped land in both states remains however, in private ownership and is potentially subject to development.

In 1998, R.I. voters passed a bond measure providing $15 million for greenway and bikeway acquisition and development. A $50 million dollar Open Space bond is likely to be on the ballot for the November 2000 elections and it has drawn significant support. A companion Clean Water Bond, including $12 million for watershed assessment, pollution prevention and habitat restoration activities is also being proposed.

Technology and Capacity

Until recently, many towns were not equipped to look beyond the simplest kinds of environmental and land use impacts. But increasing access to faster and cheaper computing power has brought sophisticated technologies within reach of anyone with a computer, a modem, and the price of software. Orthophotography, geographic positioning systems (GPS), and geographic information systems (GIS) make it possible to locate, map, and update natural and constructed features, and to indicate their relationships to political and jurisdictional authorities. Modeling software makes it possible to test a variety of “what-if scenarios” to project possible future environmental and social impacts of changing those features. And design programs allow users to picture those scenarios with startling reality.

Page 32 of 42

In addition, cities and towns now have much better access to the Rhode Island Geographic Information System (RIGIS). RIGIS provides statewide coverage of critical data elements such as soils, land uses and land cover, groundwater and surface water resources, drinking water supplies, major watersheds, floodplains, critical habitats, sewer and water infrastructure, roads, landfills and hazardous waste sites, and any other site-specific elements that can be defined geographically. The data in RIGIS are widely available and can be used by anyone with commercial GIS software. The database is updated as various contributing agencies and organizations conduct additional mapping. It allows individuals or organizations to map where resources occur, often together, and analyze the effects of development on the landscape.

Transportation Initiatives

R.I. Department of Transportation: The Surface Transportation Project, a nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C. which promotes mass transit and other alternatives to auto use, recently released a national transportation study which gives kudos to R.I. for investing transportation dollars in bike paths, trolley buses and better maintained roadways rather than building new highways into rural and suburban areasxv. These were part of the state’s response to changes in federal legislation that allowed states to spend federal transportation dollars on things other than highway construction. R.I. was above national averages in several areas in the study and was considered a state that was “open to change.” However, the report also noted that the state’s use of federal dollars on mass transit per capita was 63 cents below the national average of $16.85; a low rating was also given to R.I. for low per capita spending on traffic safety.

In 1998, the State Planning Council adopted a revised ground transportation plan, Transportation 2020, which outlines goals for the next 20 years, aiming to “reduce the need for auto travel and to make transit more feasible and cost-effective, in turn avoiding water and air pollution impacts, and maximizing the public investment in existing roads and transit service.”

RIDOT has also initiated remediation activities on several of identified “hot” stormdrains that lead to the Bay. The State received over $13 million to address these stormdrain impacts to the Bay in

Page 33 of 42

the early 1990’s and it has taken some time to get the project to the point where construction can begin. As part of an effort to raise public awareness of water quality problems in the Bay, RIDOT is allocating up to 10% of this funding for media campaign to achieve that goal. Part of that campaign may include training and information on stormwater issues for municipal officials and public works staff.

RIDOT has expanded it environmental program staff and has become involved in stakeholder processes on a number of environmental issues. In 1999, RIDOT was a partner on a habitat restoration project at Barrington, R.I.’s Mussachuck Creek. The Department worked with nongovernmental and private sector interests, spending $250,000 to redesign road culverts to accommodate a herring fish runxvi.

Transportation agencies also have access to more sophisticated traffic modeling and GIS computer software programs. These tools allow better forecasting of both transportation and environmental impacts of road systems.

It should be noted that while emissions of new cars have improved in recent years the emissions from transit buses have improved at an even greater rate. In particular, Compressed Natural Gas powered buses (like those being put into service by the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority) and the new advanced hybrid diesel/electric buses now in service in New York City, have an even better “emissions profile” than conventional diesel buses.

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) and the Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21): These two pieces of federal transportation legislation signal a sea change in the way federal transportation funds are being spent. Instead of focusing on building more and bigger highways, these laws give states more spending flexibility and emphasize connectivity to other modes of transportation (rail, air, biking, walking, etc.), repairing existing roads, and improving safety and the environment. Road design is to be examined for how it affects communities and connects to community functions. In terms of environmental issues, ISTEA created the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ). This funding source is designed to assist states in meeting air quality goals set out in the Clean Air Act. One means to that end is giving people a choice of less environmentally-damaging transportation options thus providing long-term air quality benefits.

Page 34 of 42

From 1990 to 1999, there has been a 55.62% increase in federal spending on transit, bike and walking facilities, and travel demand management techniques. There have been some results from this new tack. Transit ridership has increased by 15% since 1996 and the long-term decline in public transit usage has reversed as bus and rail service has improved.

While these bills are clearly a federal recognition that the government must reshape its policies to provide transit choice, Robert Noland and William Cowarth noted that these bills “still provided a massive increase in funding for the traditional highway expansion project….projects that have been historically less effective than expected at reducing congestion.xvii” While the intentions of the Acts are good, actual implementation at the state level varies as to addressing the goals of the Acts. Some states underspend in the environment and safety areas while others seem to lack a commitment to providing transit choices.

Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot: Congress also recently authorized a total of $120 million to be spent over 1999-2003 on a comprehensive intiative of research and grants that will investigate the relationships between transportation and community and system preservation. The grants are intended to plan and implement actions that improve transportation system efficiency, reduce the environmental impacts of transportation, reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure investments, and examine private sector development patterns and investments that support the goals of the program.

Page 35 of 42

Part IV: Challenges and Opportunities

The future suggested by current land use trends is not inevitable. New technologies and a willingness to adopt innovative measures are already enhancing our abilities to manage growth in a way that meets community and environmental goals. But even with the advantages offered by new technology, Rhode Island’s advanced planning frameworks and Massachusett’s commitment to deal with growth issues, some issues remain intractable. As was stated in the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan for Narragansett Bay:

A virtual revolution in land management philosophy and practice will be required to deal with the incremental degradation of water quality related to population growth in the Bay basin.

Summary Issues

As noted in this paper, most of the effects of land uses are incremental and cumulative, the results over time of thousands of individual, local decisions. In the Bay itself, the impacts include a litany of toxic contamination, beach and shellfish closures, algae blooms, loss of critical wildlife habitats, and decreasing water quality. Although Rhode Island’s State Guide Plan and enabling legislation endorse watershed and regionally based approaches to planning, local autonomy remains very important in Rhode Island, and it is clear that land uses will continue to be managed at the local level. Moreover, many towns may not wish to develop shared strategies, while those not directly adjacent or connected to the Bay may find it difficult to justify its protection as a priority.

In addressing land uses, the larger question has become how to “nest” local decisions within a framework that supports several critical functions and responsibilities:

· monitoring, reporting, and planning for the Bay as a whole · coordinating between Rhode Island and Massachusetts, and fostering

collaboration among communities, watersheds, and users· anticipating regional impacts, including infrastructure issues, from

projected growth and development and developing management options to address them

Monitoring, reporting, and planning for the Bay as a whole: How do we plan effectively for a watershed the size of

Page 36 of 42

Narragansett Bay? Who’s responsible? Who’s in charge of the “big picture”?

The impacts associated with population growth and relocation are likely to be the most critical environmental issues confronting us for the next 25 years, yet currently there is no coordinated mechanism to analyze and report on these impacts, nor even any efficient mechanism to share information. Right now, a fragmented array of two states, scores of federal agencies, numerous research institutions, and countless local governments with varying responsibilities collect data of variable quality for various uses.

How do data and information make their way to the public and to decision-makers? Who should be responsible for reporting on the health of the Bay? How can we begin to develop the knowledge base to make good decisions and to give us the ability to: identify, track, and analyze cumulative impacts (temporal change); identify, track, and analyze regional impacts (spatial change); coordinate efforts across two states, regional and local organizations, and municipalities; and clearly articulate trends and impacts.

Coordinating between Rhode Island and Massachusetts, and fostering collaboration among communities, watersheds, and users: Regional and local watershed planning efforts are essential. How can communities be encouraged to work together? How do the “right” communities end up working together? How can communities coordinate growth policies and infrastructure issues without sacrificing local autonomy?

Traditional approaches to land ownership, taxes, and municipal autonomy have inadvertently created incentives for sprawl; for example, the fiscal dynamics of our property tax system have provoked competition among municipalities to seek out commercial and industrial/office development to augment their tax bases. This is because the costs of accommodating new houses – installing water and sewer lines, building roads and new schools, providing services such as police, fire, and garbage collection – are greater than the taxes generated by residential development. Leaders are consumed by the yearly struggle to keep property taxes stable while still balancing town budgets and absorbing education costs that are increasing well beyond the rate of inflation. For most communities, such local needs and priorities make regional collaboration – or even regional awareness-- a luxury. Regional or multi jurisdictional

Page 37 of 42

efforts towards tax based sharing, greenway and open space planning, transfer of development rights, and flexible zoning could help prioritize areas for higher and lower densities as they relate to the health of the Bay. These techniques could assist in protecting the Bay but may conflict with the community’s revenue needs and comprehensive plans. Regional efforts will be especially difficult for:

communities that don’t think of themselves as part of a particular “region”;

communities that do not ordinarily associate themselves with the Bay; distressed communities with limited resources; communities lacking full time staff and resources required to

understand and address Bay related issues

Anticipating regional impacts, including infrastructure issues, from projected growth and development and developing management options for addressing them: How can we protect resources across multiple jurisdictions while deferring to local autonomy in land use decision-making? This approach has many advantages as a democratic process, giving local citizens direct input into developing their community comprehensive plans, zoning ordinances and land development regulations. But it also includes disadvantages in planning for regional resource protection in general and the Bay in particular. For example, much local residential development is relatively small and often scattered. As a result, it is unreasonable to expect any one community to have an understanding of the incremental impact of each development on the Bay. Given these issues, are there ways that Rhode Island can:

encourage more environmentally sensitive land use patterns promote innovative measures for dealing with small parcels that deter

concentrated development in growth nodes and parallel savings in open space

build support among residents to increase density of development near existing (or even new) village centers in order to reduce pressure on outlying areas

reconcile competing desires to concentrate growth around existing or even new development centers while maintaining low density development in selected areas

incorporate existing landscape and infrastructure in planning efforts

The general public and local decision-makers may not know what techniques are available to guide development in ways that protect resources, or which techniques are likely to be

Page 38 of 42

successful in their community, region or watershed. They may not understand the impact over time of the future land use plan. Can we find ways to help communities picture what their community will look like under current zoning in twenty years?

Page 39 of 42

ENDNOTES

Page 40 of 42

i Charlestown, Hopkington, New Shoreham, Richmond , and Westerly are the only municipalities that are totally outside of the watershed. Most of West Greenwich, Coventry, Foster, Glocester and Burrillville are located in the watershed.

ii Defined as divided highways with 200 feet or more of right-of-way for 1970 and as divided highways with 100 feet or more of right-of-way for 1988 and 1995.

iii The 1970 total includes airports, railroads, terminal facilities for truck freight, land based facilities for water transportation and fishing, and power lines. The 1988 and 1995 totals includes airports, railroads, water & sewer treatment facilities, water-based transportation facilities, and power lines with rights-of-way of at least 100 feet.

iv Includes water based, participation, environmental, and spectator recreation from the 1970 study, and developed recreation (land use code 161) and beaches (land use code 710) from the 1988 and 1995 studies.

v Total of urban vacant land (land use code 162) and urban open transitional land (land use code 750).

vi Includes abandoned orchards and fields, sandy non-beach areas, and heath covered land from the 1970 study, and brushland (land use code 400), sandy non-beach areas (land use code 720), and rock outcrops (land use code 730) from the 1988 and 1995 studies. Brushland areas were included in the forest category in the 1970 study.

viiRhode Island Statewide Planning Program, Housing Section

8 Charlestown, Hopkington, New Shoreham, Richmond , and Westerly are the only municipalities that are totally outside of the watershed. Most of West Greenwich, Coventry, Foster, Glocester and Burrillville are located in the watershed.

9 Toward a New Set of R.I. Building Codes, Carbone Jr., Domenic. Op-ed piece in the April 16, 2000, Providence Sunday Journal.

10 Defined as divided highways with 200 feet or more of right-of-way for 1970 and as divided highways with 100 feet or more of right-of-way for 1988 and 1995.

11 The 1970 total includes airports, railroads, terminal facilities for truck freight, land based facilities for water transportation and fishing, and power lines. The 1988 and 1995 totals includes airports, railroads, water & sewer treatment facilities, water-based transportation facilities, and power lines with rights-of-way of at least 100 feet.

12 Includes water based, participation, environmental, and spectator recreation from the 1970 study, and developed recreation (land use code 161) and beaches (land use code 710) from the 1988 and 1995 studies.

13 Total of urban vacant land (land use code 162) and urban open transitional land (land use code 750).

14 Includes abandoned orchards and fields, sandy non-beach areas, and heath covered land from the 1970 study, and brushland (land use code 400), sandy non-beach areas (land use code 720), and rock outcrops (land use code 730) from the 1988 and 1995 studies. Brushland areas were included in the forest category in the 1970 study.

15 Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program, Housing Sectionviii

ix Reported in the Boston Globe, April 5, 2000. Page A11.x

The data are from the Federal Highway Administration as presented in The Costs of Suburban Sprawl and Urban Decay in Rhode Island. Prepared for Grow Smart RI by H.C. Planning Consultants, Inc. and Planimetrics, LLP. December, 1999, pp. 3-4, 12-1. These figures exclude motorcycles and include automobiles, trucks and buses.

xi Roads and Highways - Factsheet No. 4, and Commercial Land Use – Factsheet No. 5. The Land Management Project. 1989. Providence, RI

xii The Economics of Traffic Congestion. Arnott, Richard and Kenneth Small. American Scientist, Volume 82, September-October 1994

xiii Analysis of Metropolitan Highway Capacity and the Growth in Vehicle Miles of Travel. Noland, Robert B. and William A. Cowart. Transportation Research Board Paper # 001288 presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. January 9-13, 2000. Washington, D.C.

xiv Surface Transportation Policy Project, 1999 Article: Traffic Congestion Driven By Sprawl on the organization’s Web site, www.transact.org

xv R.I. wins praise on the road not driven. Article in the Providence Journal, April 3, 2000.xvi Planning Communities for the 21st Century. American Planning Association report, 1999. Chicago IL. R.I. section written by Karen Finucan.

xvii Analysis of Metropolitan Highway Capacity and the Growth in Vehicle Miles of Travel. Noland, Robert B. and William A. Cowart. Transportation Research Board Paper # 001288 presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board. January 9-13, 2000. Washington, D.C.