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

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.

3. Supplementary information was also considered: the habitat's use by wildlife as observed during site visits or as previously noted by other biologists or naturalists; the use by state or federally listed species (resident or migratory); and the geographic relationship (linkage) of the parcels to other habitat, or recognized conservation and recreational lands as identified in the State Conservation and Recreational Openspace GIS data layer (Scorp90.shp). If the existing habitat quality on a parcel of land was poor, its potential to be restored and its importance if it were restored were considered. Good candidate restoration sites would include barren lots in the center of an otherwise high quality habitat corridor, sites that buffer important habitat or sites that could eventually serve to lengthen a habitat corridor. Most restoration sites, however, contained the lowest quality habitat and were therefore the least important to conserve. In some cases isolated parcels were identified that were vegetated with exotic species or isolated from other sites. These sites, while ranking low in habitat quality, were important to residential communities for scenic or recreational purposes. A separate ranking category was created for these sites.

4. Habitat was evaluated and ranked at 237 sites. Detailed field data were collected for 53 sites regarding species composition, dominant vegetation in the upper and understory, and estimated basal diameter of largest trees and/or dominant trees. An additional 63 sites were classified through "windshield surveys" that assessed species composition and maturity. Using 1997 and 2002 aerial orthophotos obtained from RIGIS, we classified habitat in the remaining 121 sites by photo-interpretation based on the visual signatures established during site visits. Based on our findings we developed the following ranking system for undeveloped lands in the Metro Bay SAMP area:

5. Conservation Zone

6. Restoration Zones

7. Scenic or Recreation Zone

8. Linkage

9. Evaluation