Section 650-RICR-20-00-5.16 - AppendicesA. Appendix 1: Coastal Buffer Zone Designations for the Residential Development Zone_________________________________________________________________Lot size (square feet) | Required buffer width (feet) for development in CRMC water types 3, 4, 5 | Required construction setback (feet) |
and 6. |
< 10,000 | 15 | 25 |
10,000 - 20,000 | 25 | 25 |
20,001 - 40,000 | 50 | 25 |
40,001 - 60,000 | 75 | 25 |
60,001 - 80,000 | 100 | 25 |
80,001 - 200,000 | 125 | 25 |
> 200,000 | 150 | 25 |
B. Appendix 2: Standard Coastal Buffer Width Requirements for Development within the Metro Bay SAMP Boundary. Lot size (square feet) | Required buffer width (feet) |
[LESS THAN OR EQUAL] 20,000 | 25 |
20,001 - 40,000 | 50 |
40,001 - 60,000 | 75 |
60,001 - 80,000 | 100 |
[GREATER THAN] 80,000 | 150 |
C. Appendix 3: Habitat Quality Ranking Criteria for High Priority Conservation and Restoration Areas.1. One of the phases of the Metro Bay SAMP development process was to evaluate and classify open land within the SAMP boundary that might be considered for future development or redevelopment. Assessments were made without regard to property boundaries; instead this analysis looked at continuous blocks of habitat which may have contained more than one type of habitat. For example, one block might include a forest, a freshwater shrub swamp, and fringing salt marsh. The value of land as a biological community was the first consideration. Though many criteria could have been used to rank parcels of land, this analysis focused on the maturity and composition of the plant community as an index to habitat quality.2. The following flowchart illustrates the ranking process for habitat quality. Please note that least valuable habitat has a rank of "1", and more valuable habitats are indicated by successively higher numbers. Habitat Value | Poor -------------------------------------------------------------------->Good |
Vegetation Characteristics | Barren | < | All Exotic Vegetation | < | Mixture of Exotic and Native Vegetation | < | Mature Native Vegetation |
Ranking | 1 | < | 2 | < | 3 | < | 4 |
3. Supplementary information was also considered: the habitat's use by wildlife as observed during site visits or as previously noted by other biologists or naturalists; the use by state or federally listed species (resident or migratory); and the geographic relationship (linkage) of the parcels to other habitat, or recognized conservation and recreational lands as identified in the State Conservation and Recreational Openspace GIS data layer (Scorp90.shp). If the existing habitat quality on a parcel of land was poor, its potential to be restored and its importance if it were restored were considered. Good candidate restoration sites would include barren lots in the center of an otherwise high quality habitat corridor, sites that buffer important habitat or sites that could eventually serve to lengthen a habitat corridor. Most restoration sites, however, contained the lowest quality habitat and were therefore the least important to conserve. In some cases isolated parcels were identified that were vegetated with exotic species or isolated from other sites. These sites, while ranking low in habitat quality, were important to residential communities for scenic or recreational purposes. A separate ranking category was created for these sites.4. Habitat was evaluated and ranked at 237 sites. Detailed field data were collected for 53 sites regarding species composition, dominant vegetation in the upper and understory, and estimated basal diameter of largest trees and/or dominant trees. An additional 63 sites were classified through "windshield surveys" that assessed species composition and maturity. Using 1997 and 2002 aerial orthophotos obtained from RIGIS, we classified habitat in the remaining 121 sites by photo-interpretation based on the visual signatures established during site visits. Based on our findings we developed the following ranking system for undeveloped lands in the Metro Bay SAMP area:5. Conservation Zonea. Sites with good habitat quality earmarked for conservationb. In most cases native species are dominantc. Rank: (1) Vegetated with shrubby or small trees(2) Maturing woods or woody fringe with most trees [LESS THAN OR EQUAL] 1ft diameter(3) Mature system: woods with many trees >1ft diameter, or emergent wetlands (salt marsh or fresh)(4) Exceptional example of mature ecosystem6. Restoration Zonesa. Potential site for restoration b. In most vegetated areas exotic species are dominant c. Rank:(1) Paved or barren - no vegetation(2) Partially vegetated with grass or shrubs(3) Completely, or almost completely, vegetated with grass, shrubs, or trees7. Scenic or Recreation Zone a. Significant unprotected lands b. Native or exotic vegetation c. Rank: (1) Mowed grass, may have shrubs, beside highway - no safe access(2) Vegetated (green) patch in city neighborhood(3) Vital scenic or recreational value - contributes to character or identity of neighborhood8. Linkagea. Habitat and greenway linkage - examining connectivity of wildlife habitat corridors or scenic/recreation areas b. Rank: (2) Land within 100 ft of other identified links or the waterfront (1)(3) Land that meets at least one of the following criteria (2): (AA) A "central link:" identified links separated by no more than 100 ft from two other links, or one link and the waterfront, or a link that has a perimeter more than 1/2 way surrounded by land identified as a link(BB) A link within 100 ft of recognized conservation or recreational land (SCORP lands, private preserves, land trust holdings), a link within 100 ft. of adjacent links that connect it to recognized conservation or recreational land.(4) A central link (defined in § 5.16(C)(8)(b) ((3))((AA)) of this Part) that forms part of a habitat corridor or potential greenway containing recognized conservation or recreational lands (3)9. Evaluation a. Type of analysis at each siteb. Rank: (1) Photo-interpretation (2003 and 1997 RIGIS orthophotos)(2) "Windshield survey" looking from outside in (1 and 2)(3) Site visit (1, 2, and 3)650 R.I. Code R. 650-RICR-20-00-5.16