plan for the Narrow River watershed

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

04,

COASTAL, E,-
RATO CENTER

A PLAN F%ra%*jnm THE
NARROW RIVER WATERSI'MYED
Tri-Town Narrow River Planning Committee

RIVER LANDSCAPES
Roy Mann Associates, Inc.
Mdriece & Gary, Inc.

June 1976

RIVER LANDSCAPES
A JOINT VENTURE
MORIECE & GARY and ROY MANN ASSOCIATES
June 30, 1976 GLIC tG'LLILPuTIG@-l

Dr. Robert A. O'Neill, Chairman
Tri-Town Narrow River Planning Committeer US Department Of Commerce
c/o Planning Department JKOAA Coastal Services Center Library
South Kingstown Town Hall 2234 South Hobson Avenue
Wakefield, Rhode Island 02879 L Charlestont SC 29405-2413

Dear Dr. O'Neill:

We are pleased to present to you and the Committee the accompanying printed
copies of the Plan for the Narrow River Watershed, concluding the effort we
began in constructive association with the Committee in 1975.

We believe our work has responded well to your interest in creating a compre-
hensive land use advisory plan that can encourage the Towns of Kingstown,
South Kingstown and Narragansett to manage the resources of the watershed with,
ecological protection as a guiding principle. We further believe that the con-
cepts and implementation tools we have proposed are both forward-looking and
realistic and hope that they will be of considerable value to you in the fu-
ture, in your efforts to promote a wiser stewardship of this most significant
watershed.

Sincerely,

Roy Mann Associates Moriece and Gary, Inc.

Roy/Mann Benjamin W. Gary (Jr

COASTAL ZONE
INFORMATION CENTER

M&G: 25 Mt.Auburn St.. Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138- 617- 868-2314
RMA: 180 Franklin St., Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139- 617-492-2050

a plan for the
Narrow River Watershed

COASTAL ZONE
JNFORMATION CENTER

prepared for:
TRI-TOWN NARROW RIVER PLATMING CMIXITTEE
Narragansett, North Kingstown,
South Kingstown, Rhode Island

by:
River Landscapes/A Joint Venture
Roy Mann Associates, Inc.
Moriece & Gary, Inc.

June, 1976

---PREFACE

This study was commissioned by the Tri-Town Narrow River Plan-
-.ning Committee of Narragansett, South Kingstown, and North Kingstown,
Rhode Island, with funds allocated by the three towns, the Narrow River
Preservation Association, a matching grant from the Ford Foundation, and
-a-planning grant through the state from the National Oceanic and Atmo-
spE6ffE Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, under the provi-
A -
Isions of the Coastal Zone Man ggmenjt, _t
_Ap Additional contribu
r"tions for printing costs of the study were made by the Dunes Club, Met-
tatuxet Yacht Club, and Pettaquamscutt Lake Club.

The interest in and guidance of this study by the Committee, by
the numerous interested citizens who attended the public meetings or
were contacted during the course.of the study, and by the staff of local
and state agencies have been greatly appreciated.

The study project directors were Roy Mann and Benjamin W., Gary,
aided by the project staff of Mike Dana, Joan Dillon, Gail Promboin,
Cindy Sarver, Gary V. Turner, and Susan Yaro.

contents

Preface . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Map List . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

MAPS 1 - 9

WATERSHED ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
The Natural Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The Estuarine System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The Upland Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
The Aesthetic Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
The Natural Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
The Built Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
The Cultural Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Land Use Patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Roads and Utilities . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Summary of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

MAPS 10 - 14

CONCEPTS FOR THE RIVER AND ITS WATERSHED . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Summary of Plan Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Recreational, Educational, and Open Space Corridor . . . 39
Enhancing the Quality of Community Life . . . . . . . . . 43
Environmental Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Option 1: Reliance on Existing Land Management and
Protection Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Option 2: Extensive Public Acquisition and Increased
Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Option 3: A Combination Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Growth Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Developing Open Space, Recreational, Scientific, and
Educational Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Environmental Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Appearance and Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
River Use Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
.!,Organizational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Reading List and Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

map, list

1. Regional Context

2. Physiographic Features

3. Estuarine System

4. Soil & Slope Limitations

5. Vegetation

6. Existing Land Use & Zoning

7. Existing Recreation, Conservation & Historic Use

8. Existing Large Parcel Ownership

9. Existing Transportation & Utility Systems

10. Aesthetic Resources

11. Ecological Constraints

12. Implications of Unplanned Growth

13. Concepts for the River & Its Watershed

14. Implementation Program

vvaterslied planning
analysis coneepts

implementation
reemommendations
tion
intro luc

In 1975, the Tri-Town Narrow River Planning Committee was created
by the Towns of South Kingstown, North Kingstown, and Narragansett, Rhode
Island to sponsor the development of a comprehensive land use plan for the
Narrow or Pettaquamscutt River watershed. The plan was to be "biased in
favor of respecting the ecological integrity of the watershed" and oriented
toward direct and specific recommendations that could be acted upon at the
local level.

During the process of plan development, existing conditions were
surveyed to identify the valuable resources of the watershed as well as
the potential problems arising from their use or misuse. The Narrow River
was found to be unique in the region and state in its estuarine system and
relatively uncommon, among coastal edges of Narragansett Bay, in the extent
of undeveloped upland areas. A continuation of existing development trends
in the watershed could be potentially destructive of many of these natural
watershed values. Community development can be accommodated, but should be
controlled to prevent deterioration in environmental quality and patterned
to enhance the quality of community life.

A concept plan was developed to respond to the uniqueness of the
watershed as well as to the need to enhance the quality of community life.

Vin-wMao.

Omi

fht"A 17OLLAA
narrow river
watershed /location

The plan is designed to be carried out by the communities themselves, by
individual owners, and by the agencies of the state with responsibilities
for the watershed. The kinds of management actions that the plan recom-
mends include both those measures which can be used in the present to
deal with current problems, and those which should be developed over
time to meet the challenges of growth and environmental use which are
bound to emerge in the future. Implementation measures are presented
as long-term strategies, for which the legal and technical framework may
have to be developed, and as short-term, holding strategies that can be
adopted within existing legal and policy frameworks.

LO M
r ec I M1 S

The Narrow River watershed possesses many outstanding natural,
scenic and cultural resources and should be granted special attention
by the public, as well as private individuals, to ensure perpetration
of the watershed's value to all.

Growth Management

Future watershed development should be guided to a small number
of village centers and to the existing developed neighborhoods within
which the centers would lie. The village centers could absorb moderately
high densities, and adjacent existing neighborhood areas could achieve
moderate densities through further infill. Growth should be discouraged
in most other areas of the watershed.

� Suppoxt state enabZing tegi6tation authotizing the u6e o6 ctusteA
and pZanned unit devetopment zoning puvizionz, and utitize theze
puvt6ion,s to stimweate quatity community de,6ign within vittage
centexs and adjacent neighbo&hoo4 .

� Utitize capitat impuvements ptog@Lamming, oj4iciat mapping, and
zite ptan %eview to pumote compact guwth within designated a)Lea6.

2
Of

o Investigate the feasibility of using land banking and transfer
of devetopment rights in conjunction with existing and use con-
trols to achieve compact village center growth, and to safeguard
ampte space outside of village centers for recreational, educa-
tionat, and open space uses.

Open Space, Recreation, and Scientific and Educational Assets

A balanced watershed growth policy affording development in suit-
able village and town areas and discouraging development from most pres-
ently undeveloped land will offer new opportunities for enjoyment and
even moderate economic utilization of open lands. A portion or portions
of the estuary should be protected as critical environmental areas or
possibly as an estuarine sanctuary. The State can acquire key portions
of an Upper River Park to supplement use of private open lands for camp-
ing, educational-scientific, and other low-intensity recreational and re-
lated pursuits. A Lower River Park, also encompassing both public and
private lands, can help secure improved water access and wise utilization
of foreshores and water-related uplands.

o Explore all avaitable federal, state, and local funding sources
for the acquisition and devetopment of such facilities particu-
larly the federal coastal zone management program and Rhode Is-
land Coastal Resource Management program.

o Pxomote watershed landowner interest in voluntary dedications of
easements and restrictive covenants designed to supplement the
open space acquisition programs and to protect the /scenic values
of the river corridor.
Support and encourage the formation of a watershed land trust to
solicit and maintain privately dedicated open space land.

o Support state legislation to strengthen the Farm, Forest and
Open Space Act to increase its effectiveness a land conser-
vation program.

Environmental Management

The lands, waters, and biological resources of the watershed
should be protected and managed to safeguard ecological health as well
as the health and safety of watershed residents.

Adopt floodplain zoning bylaws to prevent additional encroach-
ment on the Narrow River floodway and its intrinsic. environ-
mental resources. Encourage voluntary and assisted housing re-
location.

�Establish a special zoning district and site plan review proce-
dures to prevent or mitigate the adverse impacts of development
or unsuitable soils or areas of steep slope.

�Study the need for treatment of urban runoff, particularly from
the middle river area, and, to the degree necessary, require the
provision of oil and grease traps, retention basins, and other
ameliorative measures.

�Continue effective enforcement of sanitary codes and site suit-
abitity anatysis requirements on all watershed lands.

�Encourage state and federal agencies to enforce watershed pro-
tection more effectively through existing permit systems and
allied regulatory programs.

Appearance and Design

The natural and visual amenities of the Narrow River corridor
are prime assets in the watershed and warrant increased consideration
within existing and expanded regulatory programs. The following govern-
mental actions are recommended:

�Establish special zoning and subdivision standads designed to
restrict woodland cutting and thinning on all watershed lands,
with additional control of these activities along water/land
and wetland edges and on the river valley's bluff face and crest.

�Establish road corridor right-of-way maintenance programs de-
signed to maintain and enhance scenic views.

�Adopt road corridor development standards including building
setbacks, landscaping criteria, and signage controls to assure
that future highway devetopment compliments the scenic character
of the watershed.

River Management and Use

The Narrow River should serve as a recreational and scenic cor-
ridor linking activity centers within the watershed. Local governments
should:

� Sponsor and/or support a program of spot dredging or reconstruc-
tion of Middlebridge Bridge to facilitate boat passage only af-
ter further study of the effectiveness, enviromental effects,
and feasibitity of the alternatives.

� Discourage further marina and single lot dock development along
the river through existing regulatory programs and Corps of En-
gineers application reviews.

� Devetop streamside and bluff trails and access points wheAe con-
ditions permit.

Organizational and Institutional Needs

Implementation of the watershed plan should be forceful, effec-
tive, and well-coordinated. The following actions are recommended:

� The Tri-Town Committee should be reorganized or succeeded by a
permanent intertown commission.

� Consideration should be given to creating a joint state-local
watershed commission, patterned after the Adirondack State Park
Agency of New York, authorized to carry out implementation of
the plan.

\j
en 1 a rm 14 6 1"'

YV M .D
ar

295

E tire
A 11b
0
-1 0 14
r te 117 J00 C Bristo
C
Cove Highland
ove
Cov r co
V iW Q) AT A
ntowo @@AA* P0
12 AN P k
St
65 DA
STATE ARK .11 p04
0 stown I
6e
QU Horn a 30,
V fie AS PN
3 T Y nset4. '
0 U 2 1 p6
0/ B It
E er 10
0 La Ra Q 0
0 T
ickford
0 onanicut,
ME ark
RK 01
Iton 114 L B
loc ouI
0

L f, 0

les wn
Rich d hade n U Ae
ngsto Lak k Ist S1
hore
0
112 0 n 0
a
R

n Wake Id C rrant11
0
r i n rr anseff Pier 0
OU t
2 LEGENb:
UR E 0 P, rry le
TATE E.Z@Z Urban areas
He ast M un Primary roads
N c borou
A S TE Vft Natural areas
R NSTATEPARK ''
ha o n .2 at uc a e7 1. 'Rhode Islamd!sCoasta!
0. 0 n Hill oin udith Natural Areas: Priori-
Cho estown Beoc`@"_ Lig ities for ProtecUon and
30 'ManagementUILL,1975

RegimaICAMtWd
A PLAN FOR THE NARROW RIVER WATERSHED
Tri-Town Narrow River Planning Committee
'1111al Z- @1 .1 1912 (92 583) 11,1 1@ p, - I.- NORTO

RIVER LANDSCAPES
Y Nlann Associates, Inc. 180 Franklin Street Cambridge, Massachusetts
M%riece & Gary, Inc. 25 Mt. Auburn Street Cambridge, Massachusetts

hw Spring Lake',
t River

C '1Pbnd

Ponds,
X.
X

X-N
:X`
.@250

'k T N GT 0,111
'jj IT'

---- - -------

T)W N
jA AT 1@1

x
-x

V..
s
-,@ @J
r

N G s,

mseutf Cave

TU6 Naxro*s
A T 1, A N T I C 0 C E A N

LEGEND:

GROUND ELEVATION
t-runoff flawdirectim,
+ High pom
EldWMon contour

SLOPE (feet of rise/1001 distance)
0-87
8
-157
Over 15%

SUREACE WATER
Streams
Ponds, lakes & rivers
PhysiogrMIMic 1%atures
A PLAN FOR THE NARROW RIVER WATERSHED
Tri-Town Narrow River Planning Committee

RIVER LANDSCAPES
Ma.n Associates, Inc. 180 Franklin Street axab -;0assachusetts
brI(Vg
M%,riece & Gary, Inc. 25 Mt. Auburn Street CaCm sachusetts

DEPTHS &
BIOTIC SALINITIES & SED-
RESOURCES TIDAL ACTION IMENTATION

15ppt
18
FLUSHING
21 RATE
S
EKY
-10P W'- A M@ 11enn@5
24

PA 20'
21
10,

21 Im

rINC ryW
TIDAL A -rMW W?3 -0 WeCr,5
MARSH TZE-T'191-Fr"4=__ff 30

amvlam 0-1.

TIDAL
MARSH

rft@w
rym GLAK@ftJ35 3-A=-W-Dk@-5. eflw
ur,50 lymx PW 10

TIDAL RANGES SALINITIE WA17M QUALITY
neap COCKS I" (R.I. DEPARTMENT CP EMALTH 19"
3 Measurements SeaWaterClass SA Suitable for all am
4 taken when sa- vmter uses incb3ding phellfiah harvest
linities were ab- for hj=co=:p1%t@!thing,&
904 915 normally high. other p
*GA-INES 1975, R.I. Department of
Natural Resources

LEGEND: LEGEND: LEGEND:
BOTTOM SEDIMENTS BOTTOM SALINITY* E=ed bars
Sand -30 Salinity contour & vahie C d 2-4'deep
Silt & Sand -a.00' Channel over 4' deep
Silt & Clay SURFACE SALINITY*
Less than 15
SHELLFISH 15-18
--1-- 18-21
ovs a" 21-24
0 S6ft Ulams 24-27
Mussels 27-30 *In part" per
30-33 thousand
Estuarine System
@2'

locatio'k

37A!

A PLAN FOR THE NARROW RIVER WATERSHED
Tri-Town Narrow River Planning Committee

RIVER LANDSCAPES
R @ an Associates, Inc. 180 Franklin Street b
,Z
e@;Oassachusett
I iece 2mr s
@@ @Ma
6@ & Gary, Inc. 25 Mt.Auburn Street Can b achusetts

IM SOIL DATA*

r" %I K, ir

J-1"

N 1@

AT L A N 'I I C 0 C 1, A N

LEGEND:

SOIL SUITABILITY LIMITATIONS
WrM ON SITE SEPTIC SYSTEMS
Moderate
Severe

EROSION OF SOILS ON STEEP SIDFES
S=liht (p - 87)
Te (8 -157)
Severe (over 15/)

*U.S. D EN =RE,
T, QFJQ
RF
I@U
SOIL CEFY 9THE LN E
ON
Soil & Slope Limitations
A PLAN FOR THE NARROW RIVER WATERSHED
Tri-Town Narrow River Planning Committee

RIVER LANDSCAPES
Ro Mani Associates, Inc. 180 Franklin Street in id%aassachusetts
M y.
or Ca@b:@*
iece &IGary
Inc. 25 Mt. Anhurn Street achusetts

1\5

t@d

.............
'ed

Ficr

2f
CD
CD
VP
It

A S S

4V
cr

17%
ON

H
hwillil
%,.%
%
It

1;A-BT r

q
J,

IA.,M 4r oW N

51:
U I @1

Z K N 1; 1 t,

f- LEGEND:

LAND USE
Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Public/institutionsil
A
griculture
Conservation
VacantAIndeveloped

ZONING CLASSIFICATION
Rural residential N1TM""-Tft1. kft
id 'tj
Vill res en.
V &
N=h rhood business
General business
Industrial
Open space/public
E Land Use & Zoning
A PLAN FOR THE NARROW RIVER WATERSHED
Tri-Town Narrow River Plaiining Committee

RIVER LANDSCAPES
Roy I 7s . Inc. 180 Franklin Street C.Ca b
nj 7
Mcr Mwnz Associat . 14@%Massiachusetts
iece & Gary, Inc. 25 Mt. Auburn Street assachusetts

41
% It

4
C) it-IT k I N C' 1@ "w t;
.71

'r W N

S. T

@
J@
J

t@j

-Z7'.

A L A N T I C 0 C E A N

rrrrrrrrr,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, .........
.7

LEGEND:
j
Historical feature
Public access to river
Public access to river(with fee)
Docks
Shellfish beds
Public open space (state)
Public open space (local)
Private open space (Institutional)
Semi-prJvate open space
Existing Recreation, Conservation &
Historid Use
A PLAN FOR THE NARROW RIVER WATERSHED
Tri -Town Narrow River Planning Committee

RIVER LANDSCAPES
%3,@.M- n Associates, Inc. 180 Franklin Street
iece & Gary, Inc. 25 Mt. Auburn Street
M Can@bnrlibre@;4!lassascahcuhsuesttetsts

;@V

A.- IT

r'I K I I

Or"

7 .......

jl@@
)'@ ),J4' t

............
N

Uk@ A 'r L A N T I C 0 C E A N

. ...... LEGEND: parcel size over 25 acres

Private
quasi-pubUc
ic

Large Parcel Ownershi
A PLAN FOR THE NARROW RIVER WATERSHED
Tri-Town Narrow River Planning Committee

RIVER LANDSCAPES
W@Ma n A@ociates, Inc. 180 Franklin Street riib Rnassachusetts
ieeen& Gary, Inc. 25 Mt. Anburn Street Ca@t rb (@e, sachusetts i

Sow
as 0
an i-X

nz
L

411@

@j
N C. "T
-7-
-d

A 'ro

"'X-N

ItY

4 K,@ r N 1. 1 L

A 'r A N T I C 0 C E A N
LEGEND:

UTIL= ZONES
No public utilities
Existing public wqtw
Existing water, sam ary sewer &
storm sewer outside o(vaderalmd
Existing water sanitary sewer &
storm sewer in watershid
P
_roposed public water
Existingvmter, proposed sanitary
sewer & storm sewer in watershed
TRANSPORTATION
Majorroads
Mhor roads
Proposed major roads

let A
1FI.Xi sUi no Tram%pioftim & Utffity W-UY 0 LOMRAX-5
4=r
A PLAN FOR THE NARROW RIVER WATERSHED
Tri-Town Narrow River Planiiing Committee

RIVER LANDSCAPES
Ro an Associates, Inc. 180 Franklin Street an@ib ci%Massachusetts
Mg.Ma Ca@
nin d@
iece & Gary, Inc. 25 Mt. Anhurn Street @@e assachusetts

watershed planning
analysis concepts
400 -%@
implementation
recommendations
watda-"ahed analys*
qUA - is
introduction

The Narrow River, draining 14 square miles in South Kingstown,
North Kingstown, and Narragansett, is located in the heart of the South-
ern Rhode Island region, one of the fastest-growing areas in the state
(Map 1). Between 1950 and 1970, the Population of the three towns
increased by 212% (Narragansett), 101% (North Kingstown),and 66% (South
Kingstown). The watershed itself, though, has not experienced the brunt
of development to date, that has taken place in the bay shore areas and
on the more easily buildable lands of the three towns. Except for a
number of relatively small subdivisions and older communities, the lands
of the Narrow River valley are predominantly undeveloped, a rural "wedge"
between the more intensively settled areas on the east and south.

The region has proven highly attractive for commuter residential
use and for coastal recreation and tourism. Some industrial development
has also taken place, and energy-related facilities may be further developed
in the future because of the region's highway and rail system and its

74,

proximity to the coast. The watershed communities are attractive to a
large degree because of nearby coastal recreational resources and existing
community services. But, as a result of growth pressures in the region,
the watershed may succumb to unplanned change to the extent that its
attractiveness is lost and its ecological integrity is damaged.

The Narrow River is one of the several estuarine systems tributary
to Narragansett Bay and Block Island Sound on the coast of Rhode Island.
The relationship of varying geological and hydrological conditions has
created a great visual and ecological diversity. Feastures of unusual
interest include the broad and shallow cove bordered by extensive tidal
wetlands, the slow-moving, narrow middle river stretches, and the 40'-60'
deep upper ponds with their unusual anoxic (oxygen-low or oxygen-lacking)
bottom conditions and chemical characteristics. The watershed can there-
fore serve a significant regional role if it is managed carefully as an
area of special natural values -- with economic as well as aesthetic,
recreational, and ecological benefits -- and can offset the intensive
growth patterns that are inevitable in surrounding areas.

the natural environ win..

THE ESTUARINE SYSTEM

Physiographic and geologic features

The physical form of the Narrow River watershed was created by
geologic and glacial processes primarily during the Tertiary and Pleis-
tocene Periods. The pre-glacial bedrock valley underlying much of the
watershed is best seen today in the Tower Hill Ridgeline and in bedrock
outcroppings such as Pettaquamscutt Rock and Gooseberry Island. Later
glacial action deepened the valley and also deposited deep layers of
outwash, eventually forming the northern and southern watershed divides.
The varied topography and freshwater drainage system in the northern

watershed are results of glaciation, as are the upper ponds, in which
ice blocks prevented the deposition of outwash and later melted to create
the unusual depths in those ponds. In the southern watershed, as along
much of the Block Island Sound coast of Rhode Island, glacial processes
created the level coastal lowland area.

_qqq1q1qVqtqf q6qPqVqI-qAqq CA qrqr q(8qP4qo4qw0qaqvq) Pend 2qN4qaqrqr8qmqa4qm2q)qf
4qUqPqP6qV- Pon6q&

8q@qe4q&
fit& qlqi6qkq-

2qL2qW0qM0q@ 0qKo6q4

Simplified cut-away view of the Upper Narrow River watershed (not to scale)
(after USGS, 1959)

As the sea rose and entered the valley at the Narrows, a salinity
gradient (that is, a progressive dilution of salt water with fresh water)
extended into the previously freshwater river from the mouth to the north
end of the upper pond. The salinity gradient, general shallowness, and
protected conditions resulting from geological and hydrological processes
enabled the development of tidal wetlands and a diverse biota typical of
the region's estuarine systems.

Hydrology

The Narrow or Pettaquamscutt River is approximately six and one-
half miles long from the mouth to the north end of the upper ponds. The
major tributary to the Narrow River is the Mattatuxet River, originating
in Silver Spring Lake and entering the river from the north, while other
smaller streams feed into the Narrow River from southern and western water-
shed areas. Over the length of the Narrow River, high tides range from
twenty inches and fifteen inches at spring and neap tide, respectively,
at Sprague Bridge, to five inches and three inches at the north end of the
upper ponds (Gaines, 1975a) (Map 3). Salinities show a similar decrease
as the tidal effects lessen and as freshwater inflow from the Mattatuxet
River and other watershed areas dilutes the sea water. At the mouth of
the river, the salinity is 31.5 parts per thousand (ppt); at the top of
the upper pond, it is less than 15 ppt (Hicks, 1958). The residence
time -- the time required for the water volume of a river segment to be
replaced by tidal and freshwater inflow -- also varies by distance from
the river mouth. For the Narrows, the residence time is less than one
day, for the Cove -- a few days, for the middle river area -- days to
weeks, and for the upper ponds -- total residence time may be measured
in years (Gaines, 1975b),

The upper ponds have a number of unique physical and hydrologic
features that are due to their forty to sixty foot depths. Although
most of the Narrow River is too shallow for stratification or layering of
salt and fresh water, salinity differentials by depth are apparent in the
upper ponds, particularly in the summer. The ponds act as nutrient sinks
-- the anoxic conditions at the greater depths prevent normal use of or
deterioration of the nutrients. In some years, climatic conditions may
act to reduce stratification, by creating a turnover of the ponds and
releasing nutrients as well as hydrogen sulfide -- a cause of bad odor --
from the deeper layers (Horton, 1958).

Tidal flows also affect the patterns of sand and silt deposition
in the river. The average four foot depths in the river and two foot
depths in the Cove (mean low water) appear to be fairly stable over time.
However, particularly at the mouth of the river, dynamic but apparently
short term changes do occur. The river bottom has obviously shoaled since
its original glacial formation, but an equilibrium between accretion and
erosion may now exist (Gaines, 1975a; Lambiase, 1972). Sprague Bridge
and Middlebridge Bridge affect depths to the extent that they restrict
flood flows, creating scoured depths under the bridges and shoaling of
the scoured materials in the quieter waters beyond them.

Dredging
The shallow depths north of Middlebridge Bridge and at the river
mouth have caused damage to boat propellors and prevented boat passage
in low tide periods. A number of dredging proposals have been conceived
to solve this problem, including the 1969 Corps of Engineers proposal for
large-scale dredging from the mouth to the upper ponds, and a Rhode Island
Department of Natural Resources proposal for more limited but continuous
channel deepening. Although extensive dredging could provide navigation
benefits to power boaters, valid arguments have been raised concerning the
adverse environmental impacts resulting from dredging and the probable change
in the scale, size, and nature of boating and boats on the river. Con-
siderable negative public comment on large-scale dredging has been voiced
in the past.
One possible solution to the shoaling problems is spot maintenance
dredging of the channel and reconstruction of Middlebridge Bridge to
facilitate tidal flow and diminish or eliminate shoaling caused by the
existing causeway. This would appear to be a desirable alternative to
the more extensive and environmentally problematic dredging programs,
but before any decision is made on this or any other proposal, a thorough
assessment of environmental impact should be prepared. Care should also
be taken, in the event this limited alternative is adopted, to avoid
utilizing bridge reconstruction as an element in increasing the traffic
capacity of the east-west road linkage between Routes 1 and 1A. An
increase in traffic capacity would in turn have adverse impacts on the
natural and community environment of the valley.
Questions that should be carefully considered relative to the
impact of any dredging and bridge reconstruction program would include
the frequency, extent, and cost of maintenance dredging required to keep
the channel open to a specified depth, particularly at the dynamic river
mouth.

Shellfish bed and river bottom disturbance, turbidity and re-
sedimentation, changes in the volume and rate of tidal flow resulting
from either channel deepening or bridge reconstruction, and the effects of
these changes on factors such as salinity and on organisms such as oysters
which are sensitive to salinity changes would need to be assessed. The
location and environmental impacts associated with a disposal area for the
dredged material also need to be identified.
Changes in the character or extent of boating on the river
resulting from facilitated passage, the implications of increased boat
use for shoreline development or boater satisfaction, and the monetary and

and environmental costs and benefits of dredging or bridge reconstruction
need to be identified and weighed.

Except for the changes affected by the bridges, the salinities,
tidal flow, and depositional patterns of the river are apparently natural
conditions resulting from the physical configuration of the river valley
and its location with respect to the Bay. Significant changes in flow
patterns or salinities would have serious consequences for the estuarine
system, particularly for the wetlands and aquatic biota that are dependent
on them.

Tidal wetlands

The shallowness, favorable salinities, and protected conditions
of the Narrow River have made possible the growth of approximately 250
acres of salt marsh. Occurring mostly in the lower river area, these
marshes are comprised of species such as saltmarsh cordgrass (Spartina
alterniflora), saltmarsh meadowgrass (S. patens), black rush, eelgrass,
and common three-square bulrush. Tidal wetlands function in the estuarine
system to provide organic matter, largely through the decay of marsh
vegetation, which gives sustenance to the microscopic plankton, which in
turn serve as food, through the links of the estuarine food web, for
finfish, shellfish, waterfowl and other estuarine and coastal life forms.
Tidal wetlands also provide habitat and shelter for waterfowl and other
wildlife and nursery areas for the young of aquatic species. They filter,
store, and slowly release nutrients from upland areas. They also stabilize
bottom sediments which can be detrimental to finfish and shellfish produc-
tivity if allowed to become suspended through erosive action.

Although marsh destruction is becoming a major concern among
coastal states, it appears that the tidal wetlands on the Narrow River
have remained largely intact. Through the acquisition program of the
Audubon Society of Rhode Island, tidal wetlands in the southern watershed
have been protected (Map 7). Local governments and the Rhode Island
Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) regulate filling, dredging,
discharges into, and other alterations to tidal wetlands through zoning
ordinances and permit programs. However, the discharge of runoff from
storm water drainange systems directly into tidal wetlands and incremental
filling and dredging projects that have been allowed in the past will, if
continued over time, result in the incremental loss of an invaluable
estuarine resource.

Biotic resources

The shellfish of the Narrow River are, according to species,
dependent on and distributed according to salinities, bottom sediments, and
other hydrologic factors suited to the species. Quahaugs, mussels, and
clams are primarily found from near the Cove delta to north of Middlebridge
Bridge. Oysters are found in the shallower near-shore hard bottom areas
in the upper ponds. Blue crabs migrate through most of the river, although
with large fluctuations in numbers. A 1958 study of shellfish conditions
on the Narro'w River reported over-exploitation of quahaugs and clams (Division
of Fish and Game and Narragansett Marine Laboratory, 1958). The Department
of Natural Resources subsequently reduced daily catch limits for most
shellfish on the Narrow River.

The Narrow River functions as a spawning, nursery, and over-
wintering area for a high diversity of finfish species: alewife, winter
flounder, bluefish, white perch, striped bass, and numerous other small
fish. The spring alewife runs on the Narrow River are reported to be the
best in Rhode Island. An estimated one million entered the mouth in 1959;
of these, eighty,percent were netted by commercial and recreational fisher-
men (Cooper, 1961). During public presentation of the preliminary findings
of this Plan report, residents expressed concern over decreases in shellfish
and finfish numbers and species. Recreational and commercial over-harvesting
or adverse changes in hydrological parameters may result in decreases in
the numbers or diversity of finfish and shellfish species in the Narrow
River, but without a management program and continued resource monitoring,
no full resolution of this question can be achieved.

A recent summer count of birds in a lower river wetland showed
a comparatively high diversity of species, including herons, swans,
ducks, hawks, gulls, terns, king fishes, swallows, and sparrows (Oviatt
et al., 1975). Many of these species nest or rest in the upland areas
while feeding on the adjacent wetlands., In addition, one may find a wide
variety of migratory waterfowl: green-winged teals, mallards, black
ducks, and Canadian geese (Wright, 1949). Although local residents,
report an increase in waterfowl numbers over time, the destruction or
adverse alteration of either upland or wetland habitats would result in a
decrease in the.numbers or species of waterfowl that they support.

Water quality

The quality of water significantly affects the health and
productivity of an estuary. The narrowness and shallowness of the
Narrow River , the long residence times of tidal flow, and the steep

ledge bedrock valley indicate that the Narrow River is easily susceptible
to pollution under uncontrolled conditions. The quality of freshwater
inflows, strongly influenced by the nature and extent of upland develop-
ment, is a major factor in the quality of water in the river itself.

The Narrow River is currently classified by the Rhode Island
Department of Health as "SA": "suitable for all sea water uses including
shellfish harvesting for direct human consumption.... bathing, and other
water contact sports" (R.I. Department of Health, 1973). However, recent
studies and observations by residents indicate that the quality of the
water is decreasing. A study by Repasz and Hargraves (1974) showed that
the coliform standards for SA waters were uniformly exceeded throughout
the summer along the entire length of the Narrow River. Although the
sources of the high coliform counts as well as other pollution indicators
have not been pinpointed and in fact may be of natural origin, there are
several possible reasons for a decrease in water quality due to upland
development.

The installation of on-site septic systems requires a permit
from the State Department of Health showing the capability of the soils
to adequately filter sewage effluents. However, groundwater and river
pollution from septic systems may still occur if the systems are old or
inadequately maintained. In the Rio Vista neighborhood on the east bank
of the Narrow River, evidence suggests that septic system effluents
have been filtering into the storm drainage systems and subsequently
discharging into the river. The impermeable bedrock ledge underlying
the valley may act to direct partially-filtered effluents into the
river. In addition, although a septic system may function adequately
on an individual lot, the effluent from an aggregated number of systems
may exceed the "saturation" level of an area.

Untreated or partially filtered sewage can cause algal blooms
and oxygen deficiency in a water body, may be stored and concentrated
in shellfish, and may harbor disease-carrying organisms. If further septic
system development occurs without consideration of the relationship of such
systems to drainage systems, water bodies, and the geological structure
of the watershed, a decrease in water quality in the Narrow River and
adverse impacts on the aquatic resources will undoubtedly result.

Pollution from urban runoff has not been identified as a major
existing problem in the Narrow River. However, because urban runoff
carries automotive wastes, nutrients, sediments, organic wastes and fecal
bacteria, and may, for certain parameters, be comparable in impact to raw
sewage discharges (Tafuri, 1975), control of urban runoff should be a
major planning consideration as the watershed develops.

In existing higher density residential areas such as Rio Vista,
Pettaquamscutt Shores, and other subdivisions along the Narrow River,
storm water runoff is discharged into the river from drainage pipe out-
falls. Large discharges of storm runoff into a tidal wetland can de-
crease the salinity and eventually alter the grass species. The use of
piped drainage systems to handle storm runoff prevents the settling out
or filtering of solids. The development of existing drainage systems on a
subdivision-by subdivision basis increases the cost of providing cost-.
efficient runoff treatment systems as they are required. Continuing to
permit direct discharges of untreated urban runoff into the Narrow River
may eventually result in a decrease in water quality and in the value of
the aquatic resources of the river.

A third problem which is now marginal but which may become aggravated
over time, is that of sediment discharge from cleared upland areas into the
Narrow River. Excessive erosion resulting from land clearance and other
construction practices can cause sedimentation and smothering of eggs and
young of certain bottom organisms. Sedimentation'and related turbidity
can reduce light penetration in a water body. Particularly on the steeper
slopes adjacent to the Narrow River, uncontrolled development may result
in a decrease in water quality through sedimentation.

THE UPLAND ENVIRONMENT

Natural drainage system

The problems of septic system and urban runoff pollution and
soil erosion and sedimentation may originate in distant watershed reaches.
These same problems may affect the independent resource values of the
upland areas as well: its 'Wildlife, aesthetic quality, and recreational
potential.

Particularly in the upper watershed, a well-developed natural
drainage system of swales, ponds, streams, wetlands, woodlands, and
lakes exists (Maps,2,5). The wetlands and vegetated uplands function
to absorb and transmit storm runoff to groundwater systems, to slow
the velocity of runoff and its erosive effects, and to filter silt,
sediment, and other pollutants from storm runoff. Increases in such
flows resulting from clearing of vegetation or filling of wetlands will

cause streambank erosion and flooding.

The Mattatuxet River (the upper reach of the Narrow River) is
classified by the State Department of Health as "B" above Pausacaco or
Carr Pond, and "A" below that pond. Class A waters are "suitable for
water supply and all other water uses; character uniformly excellent."
Class B waters are suitable for all uses, including public water supply
with appropriate treatment, but have lower standards than Class A water
.for certain parameters (Rhode Island Department of Health, 1973). The
good water quality of the streams is at least partially the result of
the low densities of development and the large extent of preserved wood-
lands in the upper watershed. In addition, the Department of Health
enforces the water quality standards, primarily through permits for on-
site septic systems and control of large point sources of pollution:
industries, sewage plants, sand and gravel operations. The Department
of Natural Resources, through the Fresh Water Wetlands Act, also regu-
lates the discharges into streams and most other natural drainage system
elements, as well as any alterations affecting these resources.

While there do not appear to be significant pollution or altera-
tion problems in the upland drainage system, reductions in vegetative
cover or filling, dredging, or altering of wetlands may result in long
term reductions in water quality.

Soils and slopes

The physical and chemical characteristics of a soil type determine
its suitability for community development, agriculture, timber production,
and all other uses of the land. The United States Department of Agricul-
ture Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has developed a detailed soils
interpretation system in Rhode Island which evaluates the suitability of
various soil types in the state. (Although recent soils maps exist for
North Kingstown, soils data for Narragansett and South Kingstown date
back to 1939 and are not as well detailed as the later efforts.)

Within the watershed, soils have only moderate productivity
as timber land.. There are some areas with Class I agricultural soils
along the ridgelines and in the northwest watershed. However, while the
continuation of existing agricultural uses should be encouraged, neither
agriculture nor timber use are extensive at the present time.

The suitability of the soils for community development is indica-
tive of the physical possibility of constructing effective septic systems,
of the cost of construction and maintenance of buildings with basements

and road systems, of the ease of establishing vegetation, and of the cost
and feasibility of site preparation. The soil characteristics and
classifications developed by the SCS to evaluate soil suitabilities
for community development are shown on the following table.

SOIL SUITA BILITIES CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA (Refer also to Map 4.)

limitations for community development with public sewer
depth to depth to percolation muck,
water table bedrock rate stoniness flooding
slight > 1.5' > 41 N.A. not stony
moderate 1.5 - .5' 2 - 4' N.A. very stony
severe or < .5' < 21 N.A. extremely X
very severe stony
limitations for community development with on-site septic systems

slight > 41 :;"4' fast not stony
moderate
moderate .5 - 41 2 - 4T (>6" per hr.) very stony
severe or < .5' <21 slow (<2" extremely X
very severe per hour) or stony
I I I fragipan
from (USDA, 1974)

The SCS classification system also addresses slope considerations,
with soils of 8 percent slope having slight, 8-15 percent, moderate, and
15 percent,severe limitations for community development. The steeper
the slope, the greater the potential for soil loss from cleared areas,
productivity loss through topsoil erosion, sedimentation of adjacent
wetlands and water bodies, and construction-related problems of slipping
and gullying.

In more detailed soils analyses, slopes (steepness and length)
interact with soils (texture) to produce variable erosion potential
values. A certain percent of the soil eroded from an area will
eventually be deposited in the streams or ponds. Thus, the clearing of
an area during constructionwill result in adverse impacts on water
quality, depending on the soil, slope, and their location with respect
7
t

rate

e or

severe
r

to water bodies. In general, the higher the erodibility of a soil, the

longer and steeper the slope, and the shorter the distance,t6 a water
body, the greater the impact.

Within the watershed, a pattern of severe and moderate limita-
tions for community development based on'soil and slope characteristics
emerges (Map 4). The possibility of residential development in these
areas poses potential problems in terms of individual development costs,
public service provision costs, and other environmental costs. In the
northern watershed and along the western ridgeline, the existing 2-acre
residential zoning reflects the physical constraints to development in
these areas. However, even low density residential use, particularly if
it is not adequately controlled to mitigate against adverse environmental
impact, can result in a costly and undesirable pattern of development.

Vegetation

The older (second growth) woodland vegetation in the watershed is
typical of the oak/mixed hardwood vegetation of the region, reflecting
generally sandy soils and a history of forest fires in the eastern water-
shed. Forty-eight percent of the watershed, primarily in the north, is
covered by this type of vegetation (Map 5). Newer second growth shrub and
tree cover (eastern red-cedar, cherry, dogwood, aspen, birch) comprising
30 percent of watershed land cover, is more typically found on abandoned
farmland, primarily in the lower watershed. A third category of vegetation
includes trees such as red maple, grasses such as the spartina species,
sedges, and other wetland species that are found along streams, in marshes,
bogs, swamps, and in other areas of high groundwater conditions (Kupa and
Whitman, 1972; Gaines, 1975a).

Wildlife and fish

Freshwater fish in the watershed include chain pickerel, large-
mouth bass, sunfish, bluegill, and yellow perch. The anadromous alewife
spawns in Carr Pond, and the state stocks Silver.Spring Lake with brook,
brown, and rainbow trout (Saila and Horton, 1957).

A variety of wildlife species are supported by the wetland, open
field, and woodland habitats of the watershed. Although no known studies
have been made of numbers or species, the following have been sighted
in the area: ducks, herons, bobwhite quail, snowy egrets, ospreys, meadow-
larks, field sparrows, rabbits, raccoons, foxes, woodchucks, woodcocks,
woodpeckers, and deer (U.S. De;artment of Agriculture). Although certain
wildlife species will increase in number as an area suburbanizes, most will
decline as a result of the habitat destruction and disturbance resulting
from development.

the aesthetic envir -on

Aesthetic resources are the visual or sensory attributes of a
landscape, and have a value distinct from that of the practical utility
or ecological functions of the resources. The form and color of the
watershed's woodlands, for example, have importance beyond the value of
the woods for timber (negligible today) or for ecological roles (ranging
from modest to significant). The protection of aesthetic resources in
the watershed--both natural and built--would reinforce the wise management
of biological, ecological, and cultural resources and would maintain and
enhance the quality of community life* Mana ement of-the environment for
its aesthetic attributes is a valid concern.@

THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Viewsheds

In the Narrow River watershed, much of the beauty of the landscape
is created by the predominance of basic natural elements: water, wood-
lands, hills, and wetlands. Most of these elements are easily associated
within viewsheds, that is, units of the landscape that are partly enclosed
by ridgelines or other topographic features (Map 10), and are thus easily
seen by an observer from central points.

Pettaquamcutt Cove i.6 chaxacteAized by expansive views o6 open wateA,
tidat wettancts, and the dominant westeAn wooded tidgetine.

See Reading List and Contacts: NO 1.

Oj the enti&e wateirshed, the 4aAAowz exhibitz peAhapA the most exciting
divex6ity o@ aesthetic tesouAces : the )Locky headeand, wet&nds , wooded
hiZL6P beach 4o)Lmation, and the inteAjace between the AiveA and the bay.

A.6 the tiveA nviAowz in the middZe &iveA atea, the zhotetine devetopment
atong it becomes incteasingty dominant. HoweveA, the @&inge mwL6hes and
wooded xLdgeZine 6unction to maintain a natuAat chaxacteA in this axea.

The aesthetic tesouAces o6 the uppeA ponds aAe .6impte: open wateA and
steep, wooded, /shoutand sZopez.

The aesthetic resources of the upper watershed are highly variable, due
to the diversity of glaciated topographic forms and land cover types
agriculture, woodland, and wetland.

Dominant aesthetic resources and view clusters

Among the viewsheds, specific aesthetic resources or view clusters
stand out as particularly important in establishing the natural character
of the aesthetic environment: the ridge, the floodplain, upland edges of
wetlands, water/land edges, and the woodlands. The ability of these re-
sources to absorb or accommodate various uses or development and still
retain their aesthetic value will guide us as to the degree of management
needed to avoid losses of natural aesthetic quality in the watershed.

Because the western ridge is dominant, development on it is poten-
tially at odds with its landscape value. From the river and opposing
hillsides, the bluff crest defines the visual horizon. The continuity
of the tree line along the'crest maintains the natural character of the
horizon line and also screens development of the ridge top from valley

rqi6qd8qgqe,4vqjq! a's qk2qt

q14q91 qU6qf6qf q408q"4qeql

ri0qvqe04qx

W08qe2q6te16qAn 2qAidge

21
f

viewers. Because existing structures on the bluff face are widely-
spaced, sited within the tree canopy, and do not significantly protrude
above the tree line, they do not detract from the natural quality of the
river landscape. However, additional development over time could destroy
the aesthetic continuity and integrity of the bluff area.

The edges between water and land and wetlands and land form lines
of high visual contrast. Because these edges are often the focal points
of views, development along them can be highly evident and distracting.
Siting buildings well back from these edges and maintaining existing vege-
tation, as has been done around the upper ponds, serves to maintain the
visual continuity of the edge.

The coastal floodplain extends through the middle river area. Its
strongest aesthetic quality is its relative flatness which, together with
mixed vegetation and open areas, creates desirable viewing points along
the river. Recreation opportunities are also provided because of ease of
access and the presence of activity space along the flat shore.

Although the woodland species of the watershed are typical of the
overall region, the extensiveness of wooded cover in the watershed is a
valuable and increasingly uncommon aesthetic resource in the built-up
coastal edge of Narragansett Bay. A limited amount of development can be
accommodated in the woodlands because of the visual buffer created by the
tree canopies. However, the steeper the slope, the greater the area open
to view, and the more damaging clear-cutting and even selective tree re-
moval becomes. Even low density residential development will distrupt the
continuity and density of woodlands and, eventually, the natural watershed
character.

Without adequate control of watershed development, aesthetic dis-
tinction and diversity and the scenic, recreational, and community benefits
deriving from them risk being destroyed.

THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Community development

Just as the hills, water, woodlands, and other resources of the
Narrow River watershed can be described in terms of their aesthetic attri-
butes, so can elements in the built environment. Narragansett Pier,
Wakefield, Wickford, Saunderstown, and others are discrete, identifiable
townscapes, some with more pleasing,some with less pleasing aesthetic qual-
ities.

As an element in the landscape, a town is distinguished by its
visual contrast with the surrounding natural environment. Sprawling
development in outlying town areas destroys the visual crispness between
town and non-town, and, if uncontrolled in the watershed, could destroy
the positive aesthetic quality of existing town development.

Falling between town and rural development is suburban develop-
Tn.en.t, Twhich, in many instances, neither exhibits the aesthetic attributes
of tcwns nor maintains the natural quality of the rural environment. Par-
ticularly in the middle river area, the pattern of shoreline development
detracts from the natural aesthetic quality of the river without contribu-
ting its own potentially compatible and aesthetic character to the river
landscape. While the scale (height, size) of the houses is appropriate,
the spacing of them with respect to each other and to the river results in
a tattered, scattered, suburban landscape. The multitude of shoreline edge
treatments -- rip-rap, wood, concrete -- also acts to disrupt the continuity
of the water/land edge.

1FI'6&( @W'['@Mq4
xck v few'@ COMM"('h4

04M MAaAA
6hovt qua

Ftoodptain devetopment
IAn alternative to typical suburban patterns, and one that serves
to break away from undifferentiated qualityt is clustered housing.
Through clustering, the potential exists to preserve existing natural
aesthetic resources on the site within the community open space areas.
If clustered housing or a similar pattern is not encouraged as an alterna-
.tive type of development within the watershed, the opportunity to preserve
natural aesthetic resources and to enhance the aesthetic quality of
community life may be lost.

Typicat 6ubuAban subdivision One type oA c?-u,6teA devetopment

Road corridors

Many of the public views of the river and watershed occur from
the road. The impression a traveler gets of the aesthetic quality of the
area will often depend on the aesthetic quality of the road corridor.
The most-traveled roads in the watershed present a variety of aesthetic
resources.

Running atong the coast, Route IA (Boston Neck Road) has a&ea6 o@ high
.6cenic quatity cha&acteAized by %oad6ide hedgeAows ok ttee tom, tatge
estate 6etbacks, and bay vi6ta.6. It tun,6 pa,6t the cuttwwt and aesthetic
,te,souAcez o6 the Ca,6ey FaAm, Saundeutown, and Naxkaga"ett Pivr, but atso
pa,6t atea,6 o6 exten,6ive and det&acting stAip devetopment.

Because Route 1 (ToweA HiU
Road) tu-n,-s-a-fo-n-g--tWe--x-i-dg-e--
T[n-e, the views 6tom it aAe
expansive and teveat ZaAge-
.6cate tandscapes o6 wood-
tand,6 and 6ietd,6.

From Route 1, Bridgetown Road has a scenic descent into the valley.
However, the pattern of residential development near the bridge detracts
from the river views.

Other areas of scenic quality, such as Miadlebridge Road, parallel
the river, with roadside woodlands and large housing setbacks. As with
Bridgetown Road, the pattern of residential and commercial development
near Middlebridge Bridge detracts from river views.

10'k
.0,0000

A na.)ftow and winding countxy @wad, GitbeAt StuaAt Road has a&ea6 o6 high
.scenic quatity, with stone waM and neaA-&oad woodtan , paxtia.Uy-
conceated tesidences, and the Gitbext StuaAt biAthptace. ScAub gtowth,
howeveA, hides mo,6t o@ the watZ6, as weU as impoxtant views oj the UppeA
Pond and the StuaAt bixthptace. 16 the veAges weAe cteaAed to teveat the
waUs , an incAease in scenic vatue coutd be achieved.

Travel is a sequential experience, revealing a series of natural
and built aesthetic resources, and a spatial experience, as the route
varies in degree of visual enclosure or openness. In guiding development
to maintain and enhance the aesthetic aspects of travel, both the sequen-
tial and spatial characteristics of a road should be considered.

@ Vistas of the bay currently exist along Route 1A and represent
an important element in the travel experience. However, development in
the foreground of the vistas, unless sited off to the side and designed to
be compatible with the view in terms of scale, materials, or colors could
detract from the aesthetic quality of the vista. Similarly, further
uncontrolled shoreline development on the Narrow River in the vicinity of
the bridge crossings could detract from the aesthetic quality of the river
vista. The proximity of Gilbert Stuart Road to the upper ponds represents
a missed opportunity: a simple clearing of the existing dense underbrush
between the road and the ponds would provide a scenic view of the river.

Another important spatial element is the enclosed view. Within
the watershed, enclosed views are primarily created by roadway vegetation
in the form of woodlands or hedgerows. The continuity of roadside vegeta-
tion and its function in screening views of detracting aesthetic character
can be destroyed if uncontrolled development results in clearing of the
vegetation for road access or during construction.

Since much of the existing woodland is recent cut-over growth, many
road edges, stone walls, and fences are overgrown with scrub trees, shrubs,
and tall grasses. A cutting and maintenance program to reveal a clear
green verge and stone walls, supplemented by judicious planting of compact
evergreen shrubs such as mountain laurel and azaleas, and of flowering
vines, could improve the scenic value of many of the watershed's roads.

The aesthetic quality of a road sequence depends to a large degree
on the distinctness of the aesthetic resources. Coming upon Saunderstown
or Narragansett Pier is a pleasurable experience because the aesthetic
quality of the towns contrasts with the preceding views of wooded and
other natural areas. However, strip development such as occurs along
Routes 1 and 1A creates an undifferentiated and detracting aesthetic charac-
ter, due to the'small building setbacks, the strip character of large ex-
panses of parking areas, and the proliferation of non-uniform signs. On
Route 1. the further development of scattered commercial services with
their typical style of landscape treatment would be totally out of scale
with the large woodland and open field areas.

Cluster development, which represents a potentially more aesthetic
alternative to traditional subdivisions, can also enhance the aesthetic

quality of roadside residential and commercial development. Unless
clustering is encouraged as a development pattern along a road corridor,
in conjunction with active roadway maintenance and.beautification programs
and other regulations, the existing aesthetic quality and individual
character of watershed roads will, over time, be eroded.

the cultural environ

LAND USE PATTERNS

Residential land use

The predominant land use in the watershed is residential, occurring
at the highest densities (approximately one quarter .acre lots) in South
Kingstown and Narragansett in the middle river area and in Narragansett
Pier (Map 6). Moderate density residential uses occur primarily along
road corridors: Routes 1 and 1A, Gilbert Stuart Road, and Allentown Road.
Existing residential land uses are zoned at existing densities, with un-
developed areas zoned for one and two acre minimum lots in Narragansett
and North and South Kingstown, respectively.

Housing represents a valuable community resource, particularly
when it provides a wide range of alternative living environments. However,
when community development occurs in patterns of leap-frog land consumption
and of suburban sprawl, social costs often result: higher costs and less
efficiency in providing community services (roads, utilities, public in-
stitutions), loss of open space amenities, and loss of identifiable
community character.1

Typically, urban development is seldom effectively controlled
until sprawl and other undesired patterns emerge into full view. Within
the watershed, 'a number of important controls exist, but even the zoning
of two acre "rural residential" use in areas that are not suitable for
development physically or in terms of service levels does not preclude
future avoidable environmental and social costs.

1See Reading Lists and Contacts: NO 2.

An amelior@tive measure that answers some of the land-use problems
of random development'is clustered housing. By "clustering" housing--
single-family, townhouse, or multi-family--while maintaining overall
zoned densities, the opportunity exists to preserve community open space
and to capitalize on construction and municipal service savings. In North
Kingstown, clustered development is a special exception permitted use in
zoned residential districts, while planned village districts, representing
a similar concept at a larger scale, are mapped. Narragansett provides
multiple-family residential development as a special exception in resi-
dential districts with gross densities as zoned, but without specifying
a cluster principle or allowing for clustered single-family housing. In
South Kingstown, no clustering provisions are included in the zoning ordin-
ance.

The Rhode Island Farm, Forest, and Open Space Act (1968) enables
praferential taxing of selected lands by local governments, and is used to
a limited extent in the three watershed towns. Preferential taxing in
general functions better to provide tax relief than it does as a means of
guiding land use development. In areas where sprawl is likely to occur and
where protection is most needed, preferential taxation does not usually
provide an incentive large enough to compensate for loss of use flexibility
(Gustafson and Wallace, 1975). The two-year tax rollback penalty of the
Rhode Island act has been criticized by town government personnel as
being too weak to effectively maintain open space lands.

Another more specific problem in the watershed is residential
development in the floodplain. The towns have adopted regulations for
land uses in the 14' + 100 year coastal floodplain in order to qualify
for HUD's flood insurance program. The regulations typically require
floodproofing of new structures and elevation of the first floor above
the floodplain, either by building on an earth platform or stilts. Flood
hazards along the Narrow River may be sufficient to cause considerable
damage. Raised platforms and stilts may prevent flood damage to a par-
ticular residence, but may also trap debris and create higher flood levels
upstream. Platforms and stilts can also create aesthetic conflicts with
adjacent home designs. The existing on-site septic systems along the
river will also wash out during floods, polluting the river and creating
potential health hazards. Continued development of the floodplain will
ultimately result in public as well as private costs.

Commercial land use

Existing commercial uses occur in a few areas along Routes 1 and
1A; most are concentrated in Wakefield and Narragansett Pier. While town

zoning maps indicate no further commercial development in the watershed,
the provision of highway-related or neighborhood commercial services may
be justified in time. If future development is allowed to occur as a
series of zoning exceptions, strip development will probably result. Strip
development often causes a decrease in user convenience, road safety, and
the aesthetic quality of the road corridor.

Clustering of commercial services in designated areas accessible
to but set back from existing roadways can mitigate some of the adverse
effects of strip development. In addition, if located adjacent to or
within communities, clustered commercial and other services can function
as a village center. Although a planned business district is delineated
on North Kingstown's zoning map, none of the towns currently allow for
or encourage clustering of neighborhood or highway-related services in
their zoning ordinances.

Recreational uses

Boating, fishing, shellfishing, and swimming are all existing
river-related recreational uses on the Narrow River (Map 7). Although no
known formal studies of numbers and distribution of uses have been con-
ducted, informal comments and observations indicate that shellfishing takes
place mostly in the Middlebridge Bridge area; swimming, at community beaches
in the middle river area, at organizational camps in the upper ponds, and
at the mouth of the river; and fishing, around existing bridges and from
boats along the entire river. Except for community beach and boating
facilities, no public facilities for these activities exist on.the river.

Boating access is available at private docks, primarily in the middle
river area, and from a private marina and a public launching ramp. An
estimated 600 boats use the river. Many are stored at the owners' homes
and launched from community facilities or the launching ramp. River depths
and bridge clearances limit the draft and height of boats -- most are less
than 16 feet long. Boating activities are oriented to fishing and pleasure
cruising along the entire length of the river, with the exception of the
Cove area. The river is also used essentially as a protected area from
which to gain Bay access.

One problem that has been identified for river-related recreation
is the lack of developed public access facilities. Use of the river from
non-designated areas often generates conflicts, such as between automobiles,
boaters, and fishermen at Middlebridge Bridge, or through littering for
which no agency has assumed the clean-up responsibilities. However, if

public recreational facilities are provided, care should be taken to
orient these facilities to activities for which the river has the capacity
and that are compatible with existing uses and resources. For instance,
the development of boat access areas, if designed to serve motorboats
rather than canoes or skiffs, would create additional congestion or incom-
patibilities with shellfishermen and swimmers.

Another problem derives from potential use conficts among on-river
recreational activities. The river's limited width, particularly in the
middle river area, and narrow channels in shoaled areas increase the poten-
tial for boating congestion. While the swimming and boating occurring
in the narrow middle river areas are apparently not in conflict,
there are always a few boaters who will create unsafe conditions by
speeding in that area. If river use increases over time, areas in which
potential conflicts may occur include the Middlebridge Bridge area,
between fishermen, shellfishermen, and through-boaters; and the upper
pond area between fishers, swimmers, and waterskiers.

Recreation on the upland areas of the watershed in North Kingstown
is primarily oriented to organizational camps: YWCA, Boy Scouts, Newport
Boys Club and Girl Scouts. The status of many of these camps is tenuous:
the Kelgrantproperty is on the market; the YWCA camp may not still be in
operation; the use of the Casey Farm by the Boys Club is on a lease basis.
The state owns property on Silver SpringLake for fishing of stocked trout
and other species. Narragansett has two proposed parks in the watershed:
one at Canonchet Farms and the other in the north end to be developed
for active recreation. While Narragansett actively discourages hunting
in the town, some hunting does occur in North and South Kingstown mostly
on an informal basis.

Many historical structures and sites exist in the watershed, and
are open to sightseers or can be viewed on an informal basis. Those that
appear to be of particular state or local historic significance include
Pettaquamscutt Rock, Gilbert Stuart Birthplace, and the Jireh Bull Garrison
site. The Casey Farm and the Gilbert Stuart Birthplace are on the
National Register of Historic Sites. Use of the watershed resources for
educational or research purposescurrently occurs, as evidenced by the
numerous scientific studies of the Narrow River coming out of URI. How-
ever, the on-river facilities from which the studies are conducted are
either non-existent or located on North Kingstown's upper pond property.

Although no great demand for additional upland facilities has been
expressed during the course of this study, the extent of recreational,
educational, and historic resources within the context of large, undeveloped

and virtually undisturbed acreage indicates a large potential for upland
recreation.

Industrial and agricultural land use

Except for two areas in the north and south, no industrial uses
occur within the watershed. Those industries that would be attracted
to this region would probably require site conditions that are not found
in the watershed. Very little land in active agriculture remains, with
the exception of some farms in the ridge and Tower Hill areas. As is
true for the rest of the state, agricultural use has been declining in
the watershed, despite the existence of Class I agricultural soils and
due in some part to the demand for land by other uses.

Land ownership

The patterns of land ownership in the watershed reflect the pattern
of land uses and highlight the fact that much of the watershed remains
in large acreage parcels (Map 8). The implications are two-fold: the
potential for conservation of undeveloped land by individual owner
initiative exists; so does the potential for the initiation of large-
scale development. Because of the small size of the watershed, the
impacts of either beneficial or adverse action on any one parcel would be
significant.

ROADS AND UTILITIES

Roads and highways

Two primary arterial highways run through the watershed: Routes
1 and 138 (Map 9). They serve as regional links to the southern
Rhode Island coast and Providence and to Jamestown and Newport respectively.
Route 1A, a secondary arterial road and a designated scenic highway,
runs along the coast from Wickford to Point Judith. Paralleling Route 1,
it serves more local needs as well as recreational travel. Only two roads
cross the river to connect Routes I and IA: Bridgeto*n and Middlebridge
Roads. These roads have dual purposes: to facilitate access from river-
side 'communities to Routes 1 and IA, and as through routes from the Univer-
sity of Rhode Island Bay Campus and Bonnet Shores to Kingston and Route
1. Other watershed roads serve residential neighborhoods and ultimately
connect them to primary or secondary arterial roads.

Road system problems occur when development along the roads is
not consistent with their speeds and purposes. Additional commercial or
residential strip development along Route 1 as a high speed, limited
access highway or Route 1A as a major arterial and scenic highway would
probably create congestion, safety, and aesthetic problems. On cross-river
roads, further unlimited driveway access, rather than frontage roads or
common driveways, would probably increase conflicts between through
traffic and neighborhood traffic. However, road widening or other improve-
ments on Middlebridge or Bridgetown Roads to facilitate through-traffic
would adversely affect the safety, noise levels, and residential character
of adjacent neighborhoods.

Utilities

Public water service in the watershed is currently provided in
Narragansett, will serve the river communities in South Kingstown in the
near future, and is proposed for North Kingstown in the distant future.
Public sewer service will be extended from Narragansett to the existing
development on the eastern river shores, probably within four years.
Storm drainage systems have been built in Narragansett in the middle
river area, and are proposed for upgrading.

In Narragansett, extension of public sewer service to the middle
river communities will ameliorate the reported problem of septic system
pollution. However, because the availability of services will make higher
densities possible, the provision of public sewers in this area may
eventually result in additional urban runoff or sedimentation problems
due to increased building. Similarly, water service to the Middlebridge
area in South Kingstown is intended to serve existing development, but
will enable additional "in-fill" residential development in the floodplain.
Without consideration or control of the secondary environmental effects
of utility extensions, such extensions may serve to guide or encourage
growth in unsuitable watershed areas.

-QIIMII=ry of aun-ad is

THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

The geological and hydrological diversity and uncommon qualities
of the river, the abundance of estuarine resources -- fish, shellfish,
birds -- and the largely unaltered tidal wetlands and undeveloped upland
areas that contribute to the water quality and viability of the estuary
make the Narrow River a valuable coastal natural area. Although the
watershed has not evidenced large-scale environmental problems, the
incipient water quality pollution of the Narrow River will be aggravated
if the following activities are allowed to continue: direct discharges
of urban runoff from built-up shoreline development, septic system
development in the floodplains, and erosion and sedimentation resulting
from clearing and construction, particularly on steep, erodible slopes
and adjacent to water bodies. Incremental filling and dredging of tidal
wetlands and the displacement of vegetative cover through development
will result in decreases in the numbers and/or species of wildlife over
time. Even two-acre residential lots in watershed areas unsuitable by
virtue of poor soils or steep soils, if developed as zoned, will cause
environmental as well as service and development costs.

The solution to boating problems caused by shoaling to shallow
depths around Middlebridge Bridge and at the river mouth will require
further study. It is likely that spot dredging and/or bridge reconstruc-
tion to achieve freer tidal flows would be a beneficial option, but a .
decision for this alternative should be made only after a determination
of the anticipated environmental and financial costs in relation to the
anticipated benefits of the program.

The natural resources that are susceptible to environmental degra-
dation from development or misuse are shown on Map 11: Ecological Con-
straints.

THE AESTHETIC ENVIRONMENT

Some of the most scenic views within the watershed are of the
river landscape -- the river itself, the tidal wetlands and vegetated
edges, and the wooded bluff running along the western ridgeline. However,
where vegetation has been extensively cleared or where development has

occurred at the water's or wetland's edge, scenic..value has been diminished.
A continuation of development patterns without consideration of the cutting
of vegetation or without control of the siting and design of development
within the woodlands will decrease the existing natural image of the
watershed.

The roadways, historic sites and structures, and towns within
the watershed are also aesthetically valuable resources. Strip develop-
ment along the roads, suburban sprawl, inappropriately sized signage,
and the cutting of background woodlands or roadside tree rows have
detracted from the value of these built resources in the past. Without
controls over the pattern and design of development to protect existing
values and without active programs to enhance the scenic quality of
road rights-of-way and vistas, the aesthetic character of the built
environment will be lost.

THE CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT

The predominance of residential, recreational, and open space
uses in the watershed and the absence of industrial and large-scale
commercial uses has not only provided a pleasant community environment
but also the opportunity to plan for future growth in keeping with
the environmental values of the watershed. However, continued growth of
even residential development as zoned would create environmental prob-
lems as well as a decrease in the quality of community life. Residential
development in the floodplain continues to be an allowed use that has
negative social, aesthetic, and environmental repercussions. Existing
land use controls to both concentrate community development in appropriate
areas -- in terms of physical suitability and service levels -- and to
minimize development in inappropriate areas are weak. While the towns do
regulate development on some environmental resources, the ordinances are
neither comprehensive nor uniform.

The river itself and its fish and shellfish, the large extent
of undeveloped lands particularly in the north, and the many preserved
historic sites throughout the watershed are prime recreational resources.
A major long-term problem with respect to recreational use is conflicts
among users and a decrease in user satisfaction if additional recreational
development occurs without watershed-wide coordination. Unless conscious
decisions on recreational priorities are made, the existing opportunities
provided by the recreational resources and undeveloped lands may be lost.
Because many of these resources are on privately-owned land with few
restrictions on future uses, recreation plans need to include provisions

for both public and private participation.

Problem areas arising from unplanned growth in the watershed are
shown on Map 12: Implications of Unplanned Growth.

watershed planning
analysis concepts

implementation
recommendations
Concepts for the river
and its watershed
introduction

The Narrow River and its watershed possess numerous resources of
considerable importance. Future development in the watershed should not
merely conform passively to the constraints inherent in the use of these
resources, but should turn their scenic, ecological, and recreational
potential to positive advantage. The following natural and man-made
watershed resources combine to form the principal basis for concept
development:

� the estuarine system and its biotic resources

� the scenic quality of the river corridor: the river, the
western bluff, the tidal wetlands, and vegetated uplands

� the abundance of undeveloped land, particularly in the northern
watershed
� the predominance of semi-rural, non-commercial and non-industrial
land uses

p.5

it she

� the pivotal position of the watershed in the region

� the historical sites and structures

The river and its biotic, scenic, and historic resources, combined
with its largely undeveloped shoreline and upland bluffs, suggest the
need to strike a careful balance between future development and the
need to protect the landscape from overuse and abuse. The watershed
can serve dual purposes as a conserved landscape of high scenic value
and a recreational landscape serving residents of the watershed and state.
The natural character and image of the watershed can be enhanced and main-
tained by promoting the development of limited recreational facilities
within the framework of a scenic open space corridor along the river val-
ley. The watershed's close proximity to an intensively used coastal edge
and four growing communities underscores its value and viability as a
recreation and open space corridor.

The estuarine system within the Narrow River should be prized as
a valuable scientific resource. The importance of preserving and studying
estuaries is a recognized purpose ofathe state Coastal Resources Management
Act as well as the federal Coastal Zone Management Program. The importance
of the Narrow River estuary suggests the need to carefully manage future
development in the watershed to guide development patterns so that the
overall change of the watershed's character will be minimized. A
continuation and expansion of scientific study and other educational uses
of the river's environmental resources should be a priority goal of plan
development.

Existing village centers should remain the focal point for further
community development in the watershed. Public capital improvements and
residential amenities should be concentrated in these centers to reinforce
their community character and enhance their ability to attract new develop-
ment.' Development outside of designated centers should be strongly dis-
couraged to safeguard abundant space for recreational, open space, or
scientific purposes. Economic incentives along with land acquisition
and dedication programs should be combined with an effective mixture
of land use controls to carry forth this concept. These concepts would
provide for a viable economy within the watershed while greatly enhancing
recreational, educational, and scenic resources for its residents.

The concept plan (Map 13) describes a watershed in which mainte-
nance of the existing scenic character of the watershed and balanced
recreational development play central roles. Watershed lands and shores
at the upper and lower ends of the river, linked visually and physically
by the river and its ridgeline corridor, become part of new "frameworks"
in which public and private lands are protected to conserve the existing
38

landscape and to serve new park, recreation, education, and scientific
objectives. Community development is accommodated and structured in
compact, quality-designed village centers and open space is maintained
to enhance community life as well as the amenity value of the watershed.
summary of plan- concepts

MANAGING ENVIRONMENTAL, RECREATIONAL, EDUCATIONAL, AND OPEN SPACE RESOURCES

Upper river framework

The upper river area has high potential for serving as a key
natural area focus, within which compatible public and private land uses
could co-exist. An ideal way to bring this about'would be to develop a
I'public-private partnership" within which public acquisitions, zoning,
and environmental regulations would be coordinated with voluntary ac-
tions by land owners to achieve a high quality environment. The physi-
cal framework within which this partnership would be effectuated could
be considered as an Upper Narrow River "Park" and would emphasize low-
key recreational, scientific and educational, and other compatible land
uses. The large land holdings, low level of development, and unsuitabil-
ity of the land for intensive community development increase the feasi-
bility of iuch use. The Park, which might be modeled on the Adirondack
State Park of New York State, and which could focus around the Gilbert
Stuart birthplace, on the watershed's most important historic sites, ,
could serve as a low key magnet for watershed visitors, generating new
local revenue without creating crowd, traffic congestion, or land develop-
ment problems. The public areas of the Park, and private lands whose
owners are interested in offering such services, could provide a wide
range of recreational and educational activities: camping, hiking, nature
trails, sightseeing of historic sites, fishing, shellfishing, non-motorized
boating from public or private concessions, and swimming. Due to the
physical unsuitability of the area for large scale and intensive develop-
ment and in order to fully utilize the recreational potential of the
scenic woodlands and shorelines, upland Park activities should be primarily
passive and low intensity with minimal constructed facilities. Scien-
tific and educational study of the Upper Pond area should be a priority
use, and additional facilities to serve such research should be incorpor-
ated as major park elements, The Park should include not only those
lands on which facilities are developed, but also those that are neces-
sary to the protection of scenic, recreational, and educational resources.

'Refs. 3, 4. Reading List and Con-tracts

Participating landowners would be partly compensated for restrictions on
their land by new commercial recreation, camping, natural area interpre-
tation, and other recreation-related activities, which the state could
guide and encourage.

Lower river framework

The lower river area can be seen as a second "Park" framework,
within which a public-private partnership can work to protect environ-
mental resources and fortify community quality. The more highly devel-
oped urban edges of the "Lower Park" in Narragansett need not be incon-
sistent with any future estuarine sanctuary or critical area designation
for the Park's center, if careful safeguards are instituted.

� Canonchet Farms, under present plans, may be developed in the
future for use by the Town of Narragansett, with conservation
of the wetlands and upland edges for educitional or open space
purposes. This program should be supported.

� The opportunity exists on the western shore just south of Mid-
dlebridge Bridge for development of water-oriented recreational
facilities (picnicking, shellfishing, canoe rentals). This op-
portunity should be realized, providing construction is limited
and does not require filling of wetlands.

� The extensive wetlands and undeveloped upland habitat on the
west side of Boston Neck should be acquired by state or local
entities or a quasi-public conservation trust for educational
and scientific uses. The Town of Narragansett might acquire
the wetlands, the railroad and sewer line right-of-way, and the
land in between. Conservation trusts could supplement public
land holdings.

e Other lands within the Lower Park, whether public or private,
should also be properly managed, under the partnership concept,
to accentuate the environmental values, attractiveness, and
recreational potential of the area.

Estuarine sanctuary designation

Section 312 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (1972) establishes
a mechanism and funding for designating "estuarine sanctuaries": estu-
aries and adjoining uplands that are representative of a region and are
to be preserved for educational and scientific study and research.

In order to qualify under this program, an estuary must satisfy
criteria established by the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under Section 312 of the Coastal
Zone Management Act of 1972. It must be representative of a region --
here, the Virginian Biogeographic Region and be in a natural and essen-
tially unmodified state. Activities occurring outside of the sanctuary
must be controlled or managed to prevent possible adverse impacts on the
sanctuary.
Within the Narrow River watershed, the southern reaches (south-
east of Middlebridge, Pettaquamscutt Cove, the Narrows) would probably
qualify in terms of the diversity and typicality of the resources. How-
ever, the potential difficulty of controlling the effects of other water-
shed uses on the sanctuary mitigates against its selection. In the upper
river, the lack of development and modifications would increase the fea-
sibility of acquisition and control, but the geology and hydrology of
the two ponds is unique rather than typical of the region.
Because of the uncertainty that either area would qualify, des-
ignation of an estuarine sanctuary in the Narrow River watershed is not
a priority plan concept. However, the CRMC should sponsor a comparative
evaluation of other state estuaries and a more complete evaluation of
the Narrow River as a basis for selecting a candidate site. Further ac-
tion toward designating a sanctuary should.occur in the near future in
order that, if the Narrow River is identified as a priority site, plan-
ning for the watershed can be directed in accordance with established
sanctuary requirements.
Other kinds of designation and policies may be applicable. The
Narrow River was described as "unique" in the Environmental Base Stud
(University of Massachusetts, 1972) of the Southeastern New England Study
and as one of the 28 most valuable natural coastal areas in Rhode Island
by.the.URI Coastal Resources Center (Seavey, 1975). The designation of
at least key portions of the watershed as critical.environmental areas
under the CRMC would provide additional protection of watershed resources.
In addition, the Coastal Resources Management Council has proposed that
the Narrow River be designated as an area of particular concern in the
State's Coastal Management Plan.

River corridor
The two activity areas described above are linked both visually
and physically by the river corridor: the western ridgeline bluff face
and crest, tidal wetlands, floodplain areas, the river itself, and the
slopes of Boston Neck on the east. Because these landscape elements es-
tablish the strong open space character of the watershed, and because

development of them would have a high probability of adverse environ-
mental impacts, they should be strongly protected from further develop-
ment.

In addition, the corridor can function as a physical link be-
tween the two park nodes, optimizing the range of recreational activi-
ties available to a user. Hiking, biking, and nature study trails along
the river or upland areas, and utilizing existing road and utility rights-
of-way, is one means of linking use areas and of providing additional rec-
reation activities. The river itself provides the most obvious link among
resources and activities. A boat rented in the upper or lower river could
be paddled to fishing, shellfishing, and shoreline picnicking areas along
the river.

While motorboating, particularly from riverside communities, is
an existing and valid use of the river,. it is generally incompatible with
most of.the water-based activities mentioned above. Encouraging boat
rental facilities for non-motorized boats, and discouraging further pri-
vate motorboat facility development, are policies that should be adopted
as consistent with the multiple-use concept of relatively passive up-
land and on-river activities.

6q6q1q1q48q9 qfqa4qul: qe0qd 6qwqo8qA4qwq@
8qUqpqlqa4qmdtqrqv6qA qI2qN4qU: 4qwqpqkqa8qoq'7 4qM pqr4qmqerqvqe8qA
qnq0qA - 2qM4qM2qY4qA 0qoqoqa6qh2q@qj
2qM008q4qFq(qaqA4q@ 2qW6q6q@ eqd8q4qe,:
opeqo 2qvqaqcqe qA0qmqd

*4qS 00,

Elements of the river corridor

Road corridors

Views from the primary watershed roads are important in reveal-
ing the scenic qualities of the watershed. Existing scenic vistas and
other aesthetic resources within the corridors should be maintainted.
Other less scenic areas should be enhanced through additional right-of-
way plantings or through selective clearing of thick woodland underbrush

between roads and stone walls or to other scenic elements. Because the
legal road right-of-way often does not coincide with the limits of the
views, additional measures such as sign ordinances, cluster residential
and commercial zoning, and buffer requirements can be taken to maintain
or enhance these views.

WW- 4au'm U 'A MA4V4
wooat"4 e, de.6e6 Camopq frah
6t

Route I Towvt Hitt Road
k4dM'Aq4 ow4aA, "@um' rodode.
U
' kt ( '@ TD
A 44 owpq frw7
0
V1,

Route, IA Bo6ton Neck Road
ac@veiq Jear ;r view' Ckar mvea-L
Mr rpncL '7 el
A,

GitbeAt StuwLt Road
00

ENHANCING THE QUALITY OF COMMUNITY LIFE

Community development clusters

Selected, suitable centers within i_-xisting developed areas in
the watershed should become the focal points for further community
growth. New development can be concentrated to function as village
centers for existing neighborhoods and in order to maintain the larger
scale open space amenities of the.watershed. The pattern of development
should rely largely on clustered housing and compact layout of village
centers, to facilitate efficient provision of services and to provide
community open space., The existing levels of development and future
public sewer extension into the middle river communities in Narragansett
suggest the potential for structuring growth to create village clusters.
Other watershed communities with fewer soils limitations and other en-
vironmental constraints can accommodate additional watershed development,
albeit at lower densities.

Thus, three development zones should be recognized: selected
village centers, with moderately high densities and neighborhood shop-
ping and services; existing developed neighborhoods adjacent to the
village centers, where infill could be used to increase densities some-
what; and the undeveloped watershed, where existing low densities and
open space uses should be retained.

Flood hazard prevention

The most effective means of preventing the personal and social
costs of coastal flooding is to maintain an undeveloped floodplain.
Adoption of zoning bylaws by the towns to prohibit further floodplain
development, in conjunction with a long-term program of voluntary and
assisted housing relocation from the floodplain, would not only reduce
the number of exposures to flood hazards, but would-open the floodplain
to local and community recreation use and would enhance the aesthetic
quality of the river corridor. Land swaps and other means could be uti-
lized to encour'age house-moving and relocation to lands just above the
floodplain so that present floodplain occupants could still reside
within yards of the river. In order to deal with the problems of scat-
tered vacant houses or lots inherent in the long-term phasing out of de-
velopment, buildings could be leased back to owners or seasonal or an-
nual renters until a group of contiguous lots were acquired. With a
modest initial capitalization, the revolving fund created to make such
actions feasible could probably function effectively, using rental in-
come during the phasing out period to offset purchase costs. The fund,
and the management of such a floodplain improvements program, would be

most effectively administered by special commissions in the Towns of
Narragansett and South Kingstown, or possibly under state auspices.

4qC2qI 8q0

J6_ 6qhoqa4qVrqiqq
J viewable q4
q(0qjq(qe' 6q@qr 2qM4qM,
'q66qe/ q@6qU2qo8qmqe"q@ qrqz.q4q0quqr4qa 4qw4qwqn8qaql or (Ann" qr0qm6qW,q@ qvr4qO qal I qr6qnqiqd0q&8qS qo4qm
4qqq[aq4Aqd
q> 2q*a4qWqt 4qH all qr8qmqlqd0qwqtq@ qtqorqnqpqlqeqte, qqqrqDqtqkqp "I 1q16q4'qrqeqy6qJq; rqgq@ qOqe2qA
vq(,q@qi-6qb4qm 0qNqyqt or 6qm8qmoqvaql 8qw0qaql0qd -0q+qk0qM 2q@0q& qp2qo4qw'2qWqe.

8qHoodp4q&in 4qudeve4qtopment

Road corridor development clusters

Development along watershed roads should be evaulated not only
in terms of its effect on the aesthetic character of the corridor, but
also in terms of its effect on neighborhood and highway-related service
needs and on the safety and efficiency of travel. Particularly for
travelers on Route 138 and Route 1, the provision of highway-related
6qm46qU8q@4 qf4qY0q"41 2qU8qA0qq0q@

qc8qo2qk 8q444q*6q00q*

qI%0qW

36qU24qV16qAA16qW04qA08qW
4qA88ql
6qF32qw44qw 4qP
36q"68q"8qt6q? I
Commercial cluster development

service facilities may be justified in time. If so, the facilities
should be accommodated within designated zones in which development
will be clustered and set back from the road. Similar development
guidelines should be adopted for neighborhood services, if and when
community populations grow to require and support them.

Low density residential development

In areas of the watershed that are zoned for one- or two-acre
residential development, and which are not physically suited to higher
densities, clustered development should be encouraged. While gross den-
sities would remain constant, clustering of housing can maintain the
open space charaiter of the watershed and avoid certain potential costs
of urban sprawl.

Environmental management

Although wise environmental management is an inherent component
of each of the concept areas defined above, it must also be recognized
and effectuated through independent programs at various levels of gov-
ernment and through self-policing and voluntary efforts in the private
sector. Only through a genuine "partnership" approach, with landowners
and individual citizens shouldering responsibilities along with public
agencies, can the lands and water of the watershed be protected as well
as used and enjoyed.

1See Reading List and Contacts: No 2.

oft 4i*4-,
A

7@_
7
r

W
z@
40,
T
WISUAL'
W-W

V.-J,
s 'row

Ai@M AND m=vr

VM716 AV,,M"ot@ V*wwro

vy Av
"_14

A T L A N T I C 0 C E A N

LEGEND:
Roadvn!y@
Lines of view
lEfflux", Viewshed boundary

g
AESTIIETIC RESOURCES
@0 . . . . . . . . . . .
HiUside
P@ Tidal marshes
Marsh views: wooded background
Mbodlands
Agriculture/open
-velo
EC
_ped
Well d6fined road w/contIxAled W
View cluster, oo
REMESE-W @TNEM CO@RN
AestheUc Resources
A PLAN FOR THE NARROW RIVER WATERSHED
Tri-Town Narrow River Plaiining Committee 10

RIVER LANDSCAPES
Ro 180 Franklin Street Cambridge. Mass@husetts
M Y.Malin Associat@, Inc. Mt. A@jb._, St_et
.@iece & Gary, Inc. 25 Canibi-idge, Massachusetts

Ali.

71f_@_

A.@'.l 111 T
j
0. Rj-if@

A
K,

AA q Ir @o 11 N

7_
N
N
-Z
S 1, H_,-.
- If
7

b@
j
YJ

X
',I@ je
A T I C 0 C E A N
A T L A N

:
Z
z
LEGEND:

P111 Wetlamds
Slopes over 8Y
Floodplain*-land below 14'elevation
Soils with lim ations for develop-
ment without public sewers
"Y 'g,
*US. FLOOD INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION HIJh
ENT OF AGRICULTURE, SOIL'
U TNM
NNIS911WO SERVICE

Eco al Com ratinints
kmic
A PLAN FOR THE NARROW RIVER WATERSHED
Tri-Town Narrow River Planning Committee

RIVER LANDSCAPES
Ro 180 Franklin Street Massachusett
M .
.@_Mann Associates. Inc. s
lece, & Garv_ Inc. 25 Mt. Anburn Street as-I-etts

'7-
Y i

'@ ru__

e
'D
yv@
A
'k-

-z

ii-TH K f N c. t.
7,
7N

JA Ni 0 WN

-v,

S 0 LT T @H@

'Iw

A T L A N T I C 0 G E A N

LEGEND:

Existing development
General(y available for develoyment*
"d
Unsuitable fordevelopment be-
Mi.-
cause of site-prepamnon, costs,
W
absence of sewerage, or hazards
*Compare development-saitable
areas With areas bf ecological
constraints (See Nap 12). Develo
p
ment-avaiLabre lailds inchide f lood--
plain & areas of poor septic
Imp of Unplanned Growth
A PLAN FOR THE NARROW RIVER WATERSHED
Tri-Town Narrow River Planning Committee
12

RIVER LANDSCAPES
Ro
y 180 Franklin Street CanibridEe, Massachusetts
o iece & Gary Massachusetts
Mann Associates, Inc.
. , Inc. 25 Mt. Auburn Street Carnbridge. I

Planned Commercial A

ensity.
Low D
-Cluster Residential
Open Lai@ds
F AMN, _7
01121

15M,

fiff
ME
.9t
\C;
@'Piimary Corridor
lo
10
AF

y 4@)

;SETT
Moderafb/114 h
19

QpiO ftace,
W N
UPI 114t

@0'
Won- 41,.
L Moderate
-sidential
S.

Vs
deHougiM
De
Reside
T 0 lli'$' So" River. r

Lower
7.. River

5
PLO
1;,10"M

T A N T I C 0 C E A N

LEGEND:
A
p .... Riverpark
. . . . . . . Bluffg

M,
4, River corridor
Flogidplain
@. . . .. ..... Wedahds
AM
MUIMMINM. Planned watershed community
'j.
Access
Related existing community
0 centers
Low density residential/open I and

Concepts for the River & Its Watershed
A PLAN FOR THE NARROW RIVER WATERSHED
Tri-Town Narrow River Planning Committee
13

RIVER LANDSCAPES T.-
Rg ISO Franklin Street C.C br ssachusetts
nr
bn
.,g!g0a
N or.*ann Associates, Inc.
lece & Gary, Inc. 25 Mt. Anburn Street achusetts

T11
T

f
J-
. . . . . . . . . . .-
d
e
per@ r

,-T,T
-A,

2
@R ild co idov'

@v
J A,,M 11 @, s "r, o
..S
6@

`TS6ej1-11U` Ease nis)
1jovVer Rim
I,!: s o u, @fl()
P
N G S.T 0
it
YLEGEND:

r
'ZONINQ", @T
ATUAT,
PECIAL TIHNG"i
100
ng
(Ustrict
x nTRTMTO Mite 4@9 rftectio3i'districts
MWe
i protection districts
X
WETLAND AREAS
Tidal wetlands
Freshwater wetlands
PLANNED WATERSHED COMMU
AREAS
Low/moderate densit
d
Moderate/high e y
PERMIT/CONTROL AREAS
River/pond/wetland edges
f
............... Boating corridor
J-- ACQUISITION/CONSERVATION
AGREEMENT AREAS
River Park
UL= River Park
Bluff scenic easem
Scenic road corridor or easements
ation Program
A PLAN FOR THE NARROW RIVER WATERSHED
Tri-Town Narrow River Planni g Committee
14

RIVER LANDSCAPES
M
ann Associates, Inc. 180 Franklin Street Cambrifte, Massachusetts
iMe & Gary, Inc, 25 Mt. Auburn Street Caxnb@idge,-Massachusetts

watershed planning
anakvsis concepts

@00, VIM
At implementation
A recommendations
q@ mono .40
e- ,. "L. du "ca t ion
X@

The Narrow River watershed concept plan suggests a series of
actions that will assure the preservation of the Narrow River's unique
resources while providing an attractive environment for community growth
channeled to ecologically suitable village areas. Initiation of action
towards this end can be guided by a strategy identifying effective
tools for the implementation of each plan element as well as well-defined
roles for local and state government and the private sector. The careful
development of this strategy will result in the successful implementation
of the Narrow River watershed concept plan.

Reliance on Existing Land Management
optionl: and Protection Programs

This strategy would rely on existing local and state regulatory
programs to implement the plan. It is based on the assumption that no
new regulatory measures would be adopted, and that local and state agencies

would acquire watershed lands according to existing priorities and sched-
ules for area land acquisition.

Existing zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations of the three
towns describe densities and land uses that are generally consistent with
the ecological suitability, levels of public services,and growth trends
of the watershed. Existing and evolving regulatory programs of the
Coastal Resources Management Council will help assure that the watershed
is managed as a valuable coastal resource. Additional state programs of
the Department of Health, Department of Natural Resources and the Office
of State Planning will also help minimize impacts of development on valu-
able resources.

This strategy represents an attractive option since the burden of
administering local and state regulatory programs would not be increased,
nor would governmental agencies be encumbered with large scale land acqui-
sition costs and other efforts. The Narrow River Uatershed is, however,
an attractive location for urban and possibly energy-related growth, and
existing local regulatory programs will not forestall or adequately shape
increased development for long. Though.existing state programs safeguard
valuable natural resources, theywill not prevent the long term cumulative
effects of development in the watershed. Finally, if public land acqui-
sition and protection are not vigorously pursued, many valuable corridor
parcels will be acquired and developed in wasteful and environmentally
incompatible patterns well in advance of future beneficial local or state
actions.

A strategy relying entirely on existing regulatory programs and
existing levels of public land acquisition thus will not assure the suc-
cessful implementation of the watershed plan.

Extensive Public Accruisition and
option 2 Increased Regulatioft

This strategy would rely on a large scale public acquisition pro-
gram and increased local and state land use regulation. It is based on
the assumption that public acquisitlon would be used to assure the pre-
servation of all areas in the watershed of high potential public recre-
ational, ecological, educational, scientific,or scenic value. Public

acquisition would be coupled with moratoriums on development, restrictive
zoning,or similar restrictive regulations to forestall development of
lands scheduled for acquisition. Legislative support in the form of
appropriations for land acquisition and enabling legislation to authorize
increased restrictions on land use development would be essential to the
success of this strategy.

Although large scale public acquisition could assure the implementa-
tion of the corridor plan, it would be a prohibitively expensive means of
land use control. If coupled with a severely restrictive regulatory pro-
gram, free choice and independent decisions for wise land management could
be unreasonably thwarted. The strategy might also backfire, alienating
watershed residents, members of the town governments, and state legislators
who might otherwise lend cooperative support to plan implementation.

option 3: A Combination Strategy

This strategy combines existing local and state acquisition, regu-
latory, educational, and advisory programs with new tools as well as
recommended new measures to implement the concept plan. This approach
strikes a balance between Options I and 2 and represents the proposed
strategy for plan implementation.

GROWTH MANAGEMENT

Unplanned growth could result in the loss of valuable watershed
resources. Future growth should be guided to suitable locations and
minimized in areas inappropriate for development.

VILLAGE CENTERS COULD BECO14E THE FOCAL POINTS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

Existing developed areas could become the focal points for most
future land use development in the watershed. These areas could evolve
as attractive, compact village centers in the finest of Rhode Island town
traditions, providing housing, commercial facilities, and more easily
accessible and energy-efficient public services for watershed residents and
visitors.

Zoning and subdivision

Amending existing zoning and subdivision regulations to permit
neighborhood commercial and higher density residential development (2
to 4 units per acre or greater, with design review by the planning
boards) in selected areas would provide an initial basis for stimulat-
ing the growth of village centers. Plan Unit Development (PUD) and
cluster development provisions could be added to existing town codes
to further reinforce the selected village centers and help upgrade
neighborhood design in the adjacent existing areas.

Through PUD provisions, prospective developers could be permit-
ted to integrate residential, commercial, and open space uses within
the development of a single land parcel. Cluster provisions could be
used in conjunction with PUD's to allow clustering of site uses. These
provisions could be enforced through a site plan appraisal process which
would afford local zoning boards the opportunity to negotiate with de-
velopers to assure that final projects were fully consistent with local
plans for the area. Cluster and PUD provisions could be applied to high-
way commercial development, as well as village centers, to improve site
design along Routes 1 and IA.

Through cluster and PUD provisions, the towns could substan-
tially reduce capital investments in roads, utilities, and related ser-
vices for future watershed development. Heating and cooling requirements
for clustered commercial establishments could also be reduced, as well as
fuel requirements for car-using shoppers. The towns could also retain
increased open Tpace and secure improved site designs on the basis of
these measures. Although there are no references to PUD and cluster
provisions existing in Rhode Island enabling legislation, many communi-
ties, including North Kingstown, now use them. (Legislation is pro-
posed for the upcoming session of the state legislature to amend state
statutes to include these provisions.)

Capital improvements

Town capital improvements programming could also be used to
stimulate futur*e growth in the village centers. The allocation of public
capital investments for roads, sewers, water, and related services for
these areas, in conformance with comprehensive plans drawn up by the
towns, could be afforded high priority. By providing the infrastructure
and services necessary to support future development in desirable and
energy-efficient patterns, the village centers could become particularly

1See Reading List and Contacts: No 1.
50

attractive growth areas. In a like manner, denial of improvements in
those areas deemed inappropriate for development would impede growth,
thereby assuring conservation of valuable open space while reinforcing
growth and development within the village centers.

official mapping

As an adjunct to the capital improvement policies, the towns could
prepare and revise official town maps with specific delineation of improved
road systems and new municipal areas within the village clusters. Chapter
45-23.1 of the Rhode Island General Laws enables communities to adopt offi-
cial maps showing the location of streets "existing and established by law
as public streets" and the exterior lines of "other streets deemed necessary
by the city or town council for sound physical development" (Rhode Island
Statewide Planning Program, 1975). Based on the official maps, the
towns can prevent the development of land not abutting a mapped street by
denying building permits. Through this measure, the communities can
focus future development in the village centers and prevent unplanned
development outside the centers. Capital improvements programming and
official mapping actions are both existing tools that can be acted upon
without delay in the implementation of the concept plan.

OPEN SPACE AND SCENIC AMENITIES CAN BE MAXIMIZED BY MINIMIZING LAND USE
DEVELOPMENT IN OUTLYING AREAS.

zoning and subdivision

By preventing widespread growth and development outside of village
centers, the open character and natural amenities of the watershed can be
maintained. These outlying areas, including some on the fringe of the
random housing development.on Boston Neck, could be revised for the lowest
density residential development permissible (2 acres/dwelling unit). This
action could be coupled with comprehensive plan requirements for compact
village development, as well as cluster provisions to require that any
subdivisions involving more than six acres, or more than three lot divi-
sions, be developed on a cluster design basis. These measures represent
the most restrictive steps the communities could take within the context
of traditional zoning. Although they will assure a more attractive form
of low density development, they will not necessarily prevent sprawl or
large scale subdivision if the adopted zoning changes are revised or
otherwise made ineffective upon the emergence of future development
pressures.

Transfer of development rights

Local government cannot prevent totally the development of land
through traditional zoning without compensating affected land owners, un-
less special district zoning or other special measures are instituted.
Zoning in conjunction with Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) is a mea-
sure recently developed to alleviate this problem. TDR uses the open
market to compensate individuals deprived of development rights on their
land through local zoning.

A TDR program involves the development of a zoning plan in which
some areas are zoned for intensive development while other areas are
zoned for limited or no development. Next, each acre of land within the
zoning jurisdiction is assigned an equal share of development rights.
The distribution of rights is designed to insure that areas zoned for
limited development have a surplus of rights, while areas zoned for in-
tensive development are provided insufficient rights to proceed with
development. A market system thus evolves, within which individuals
seeking to develop intensive uses must acquire additional rights in ad-
vance of their projects. By selling their surplus development rights
on the open market, owners of restricted lands are thus compensated.

A TDR process could be used as a comprehensive growth management
program in the watershed to concentrate development in village centers
while minimizing development in outlying areas. Existing state enabling
legislation and the complex administrative systems required have, however,
impeded widespread use of TDR programs. Existing Rhode Island enabling
legislation will have to be appropriately amended in advance of any appli-
cation of TDR in the state. The towns would also have to amend existing
ordinances and develop a process for allocating and recording the exchange
of development rights. This process could be simplified if the towns
elected to utilize TDR within the watershed alone through a special dis-
trict zoning provision (watershed lands being easily and reasonably rec-
ognized as falling within a district of special character).

Land banking

Land banking represents another possible approach to managing fu-
ture development in the watershed. Land banking consists of public acqui-
sition of land eminently threatened by private development. Quasi-public
acquisition (by public interest, non-profit organizations) can achieve the
same ends. Subsequent to such acquisition, land can be resold or leased
to prospective developers with deed restrictions or lease agreements pre-

scribing its future use. A land banking program could be used, for ex-
ample, to manage future growth within village centers and to minimize
development in outlying areas.

An effective land banking program would require a substantial
investment of public capital. This, in conjunction with the reduction
in local property tax revenues associated with public land acquisition,
renders this measure an expensive growth management technique. While
communities can be reimbursed for their initial outlays through sell-
back and lease-back arrangements, revenues from these arrangements may
be delayed for several years. Thus the principal disadvantage of a land
banking program is cash-flow.

GROWTH MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are presented according to those
that can be acted upon immediately and those that will require state
legislative action or the development of significant new funding in ad-
vance of implementation.

Immediate Action

Narragansett should be encouraged to amend existing zoning and
subdivision regulations to peAmit neighborhood clustered comme-
cial development on Boston Neck, and clustered single family de-
tached, townhouses , and garden apartments, or other forms of
mutti-family residential development in suggested village centers
at densitites of two to four units per acre or greater under ap-
propriate design controls.

The watershed towns should be encouraged to zone existing partly
developed areas outside the suggested village centers for low to
modederate density development and to hold low densities in other
watershed areas.

The watershed towns should be encouraged to use capital improve-
mens programming and official mapping to focus future road con-
struction, sewer and water facilities, and other public services
in the suggested village centers.

Longer Term Action

Legislation to add cluster and PUD provisions to existing state
enabling legislation should be supported and Narragansett and
South Kingstown should be encouraged to add cluster and PUD pro-
visions to existing zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations.

� TDR should be afforded careful consideration as a future
growth management program for the watershed.

� Initiation of a public land banking program should be encour-
aged in North Kingstown and Narragansett to manage growth in
suggested village centers and to retard large scale develop-
ment in outlying areas.

� Easement and other less-than-fee rights should be acquired,
and tax incentives adopted in the three towns when either full
titte purchase or protection through zoning appear unworkable.
]DEVELOPING OPEN SPACE RECREATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES

A strong recreational and educational role for the corridor
could preserve its natural and scenicresources and could form the nu-
cleus of a regional natural resource-based economy. The upper and
lower parks and intervening river and road corridors will provide am-
ple frameworks for accomplishing this purpose.

PUBLIC ACQUISITION COULD SERVE AS THE PRINCIPAL BASIS FOR PRESERVING
VALUABLE WATERSHED RESOURCES.

Public acquisition of full or partial interest in land is the
principal means of reserving open space for public recreation or educa-
tional facilities. Acquisition of full interest involves the outright
purchase of fee simple title to land, whereas acquisition of partial
interest involves the purchase of easements or development rights.

Public acquisition would assure the long-term preservation and
public use of valuable corridor resources. However, it requires large
scale capital investments on a short-term basis and reduced local prop-
equity tax revenues by removing land from the local tax rolls.

Land acquisition is also a time consuming process and will re-
quire the concerted efforts of several local, state, and private enti-
ties. The need for an organization designed to coordinate the acquisi-
tion program, as well as other implementation strategies is foreseen,
and three alternative organizational structures have been identified in
the Organizational Considerations Section. Among the alternatives ad-
vanced, a watershed commission patterned along the lines of the Adiro
dack Park Agency in the state of New York would prove most effective.

See Reading List and Contacts: No 4.

Several financial assistance programs can be used by state and
local governments to defray the costs of land acquisition. The follow-
ing table summarizes these programs and their potential applicability
to the Narrow River Corridor.

U.S. and Rhode Island Land Acquisition Assistance Programs

Eligible
Program/Agency Recipients Summary of Applications

Land and Water State and Recreation planning, develop-
Conservation Fund, local ment and land acquisition for
BOR, DOI government all park facilities

Estuarine Sanc- State Acquisition.and management of
tuary Program, government an estuarine sanctuary in the
OCZM, NOAA .upper river park area

Community De- Local Recreation planning, develop-
velopment Pro- government ment and land acquisition for
gram, Dept. of local park facilities through-
HUD out the watershed

Fish Restora- State Acquisition and management of
tion-and Wild- .@government. fish and wildlife habitat for.
life Restora-. research,.hunting, and.sport
tion-Programs, fishing
Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and
Wildlif e 'DOI'.,

Resourc6@'Conser".- Local -Recreation planningi develop-
vation.and Devel@ government merit-and land acquisition.for
opment Program, local park and conservation
U.S. Dept_of@@- projects
Agriculturei

Green Acres Pro.@ State-and Acquisition-and@development
gram, Rhode local of state and local park fa-
Island Dept. of government cilities
Natural Res-

ources

THE PUBLIC NEED NOT ACQUIRE ALL WATERSHED LANDS.

Easements and covenants

in consideration of the high cost of land, public acquisition of
fee simple and easements could be supplemented with a program designed to
stimulate voluntary dedications of restrictive covenants and easements
on private property. By affixing restrictive covenants to the title on
lands, existing property owners can prescribe conditions on the future
use of the parcel. If the covenant is designed to prohibit the develop-
ment of scenic or natural areas, it would have the same effect as scenic
or conservation easements. Dedicated covenants and easements could be
solicited for the following purposes within the context of the proposed
plan:

� to preserve private land holdings within areas suggested
for public recreational and educational development

� to preserve scenic ridge, bluff face,an.d flood plain views
within the Narrow River corridor

� to preserve scenic vistas and corridors along watershed
roads and highways -

While easements and covenants should be sufficiently restrictive to pre-
serve the land, they should also allow land owners to develop private
recreational uses that would be consistent with the corridor concept plan
(such as camping, hunting, fishing, canoe and kayak rentals).

.Dedicated easements and covenants would insure the long term pre-
servation of valuable watershed lands at no cost to the public. In
addition, private property owners are afforded tax deductions on their
federal income tax returns as an incentive to dedicate their land to pub-
lic purposes.1 Since this measure relies entirely on the voluntary
participation of landowners, a local organizaton (as for example the
commission structure described in the Organizational Considerations
Section) should dedicate considerable effort toward stimulating landowner
participation in the easement and covenant dedication program.

I
See Reading List and Contacts: NO 5.

Land Trusts

The creation of a watershed private land trust could also aid in
the preservation of open space. Private land trusts are non-profit
organizations established to preserve land for the public's benefit
through acquisition or dedication of full or partial interests in land.
Land trusts are organized under state corporate law as non-profit corpor-
ations. As corporate entities, they must be based on a charter defining
the purpose and nature of the corporation, as well as on by-laws pre-
scribing the rules under which the corporation will operate.1 Land
trusts have proved effective in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Massachu-
setts.2 Their success as land preservation organizations is partially
attributable to the tax advantages they can offer property owners. As
an incentive for dedicating land to a land trust, pro erty owners can
o@tain the previously mentioned income tax reduction.s

Since they rely on land dedications, land trusts do not require
substantial financial resources. Their principal 'financial liabilities
include property maintenance costs an'd local property tax obligations.
Property tax obligations could be reduced by obtaining preferential
tax treatment under the Farm, Forest, and Open Space Act. The Audflbon
Society of Rhode Island and Rhode Island Heritage Foundation have obtained
complete deferral of tax obligations through special legislation in the
state legislature.

Preferential tax treatment

Preferential tax treatment under the Rhode Island Farm, Forest
and Open Space Act (1968) can be used as an incentive to obtain voluntary
dedications of private property for open space conservation. However,
this program needs to be strengthened in two areas to render it an
effective open space preservation measure. First, local government needs
a broader tax base to decrease its dependence on local property tax
revenues. As long as local governmental functionsare supported by
property tax revenue, widespread use of this program will be hindered.
Second, the current two year rollback provision designed to penalize
speculative conversion of open space land should be lengthened to ten

ISee Reading List and Contacts: NO 6.
2See Reading List and Contacts: Nos 7,8,9.
3See Reading List and Contacts: NO 5.

years to make such conversions prohibitively expensive.

These measures, in conjunction with an active program to stimulate
private interest in participating in the program, could-render the tax
deferral program an effective means of preserving open land.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE PROVIDED INCENTIVES FOR LARGE-SCALE OPEN
SPACE PRESERVATION PROGRAMS.

Town revenues in the form of property taxes could substantially
decline as the corridor program evolves. The loss in tax revenue would,
however, be partially offset by the following:

� local public benefits derived from local access and use of
recreational and educational facilities within the park entity

� reduced town service costs in the form of tonstruction and
maintenanc.e of utilities, roads, and related public services

� increased tourist trade and concommitant commerce and recreation-
al development in other areas of the town jurisdiction

However, consideration could be given to providing local entities
additional compensation for the loss of tax revenues. An equitable
arrangement might consist of an annual rollback of state taxes to juris-
dictions maintaining large-scale open space facilities in proportion to
the real loss in property tax revenue. An alternative approach could
involve state tax reforms designed to provide local government new
sources of general revenue. Either of these measures would require new
state legislation as well as a significant shift in existing state tax
policies.

THE NARROW RIVER FLOODPLAIN MAY WARRANT SPECIAL ATTENTION IN THE OPEN
SPACE PROGRAM.

Unlike most areas identified as prospective open areas in the
corridor concept, the central Narrow River floodplain is fairly well
developed. As envisioned in the Plan, the floodplain could provide open
scenic vistas as well as public and private recreation areas throughout

1See Reading List and Contacts: NO 10.

the length of the river corridor hand in hand with a reduction in flood
hazard to life and property. As described under the environmental man-
agement section of the Plan, future development of undeveloped flood-
plain areas should be minimized through floodplain zoning. Considera-
tion should be given to encouraging and assisting in the relocation of
existing homes from high flood hazard areas.

Such a program could be aided by the creation of a special pur-
pose commission endowed with appropriate enabling legislation and financ-
ing. The commission could be empowered to have first option on all flood
prone property available on the open market. Until such time as a size-
able land tract were assembled, the commission could be empowered to
lease each property for continued use. Once a large-enough tract was
assembled, the commission could be provided the option of redeveloping
for recreational use, or selling the land with appropriate deed restric-
tions for private development of recreational uses. The leaseback and
sellback features could be specifically designed to provide the finan-
cial basis for the operating life of the commission.

Through this program, the floodplain could be redeveloped as a
functional recreation resource contributing to the enhancement of the
natural character of the river, as well as to the local economy, while
providing for a fully voluntary framework for house-moving to nearby up-
land edges above the floodplain and for other relocation options by
present home owners, with full compensation and assistance benefits.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DEVELOPING OPEN SPACE, RECREATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC...
AND EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES.

The following implementation measures will span several years,
but should be initiated in the immediate future.,

.0 State and local governments should be encouraged to acquire
and maintain open space, recreational, edcational, and scien-
tific research facilities in the areas identified on Map 14.
All potential sources of federal, state, and local funds should
be explored for this purpose. The CRMC should be encouraged to
investigate the possibility of establishing an estuarine sanctu-
any within the watershed or alternative protective measures for
critical watershed areas.

State and local governments should be encouraged to develop
active programs designed to solicit voluntaary dedications of
easements and restrictive covenents to supplement open space

acquisition programs. The establishment of a private land
trust should be considered as a means of supplementing
governmental action toward this end.

� The state legislature should be encouraged to strengthen the
Farm, Forest, and Open Space Act, and to broaden local
tax bases to stimulate a more intensive and effective use of
tax deferrals as an open space preservation measure.

� The state legislature should be encouraged to consider enacting
legislation to enable the state to compensate the watershed
towns for reduced tax revenue associated with the corridor
program.

� North and South Kingstown should investigate establishing a
special purpose commission to acquire, relocate, or remove over
time existing development in the 100-year floodplain.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

The environmental resources of the watershed warrant special
consideration within the context of an implementation strategy. Because
of their vulnerability, concerted action on the part of local and state
governments should be instituted to assure their protection.

ILL-PLANNED AND ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE CAN BE AVOIDED BY THE ADOPTION OF
SPECIAL ZONING ORDINANCES.

The towns should use special district zoning programs to restrict
land use development and minimize developmental impacts in several
watershed areas encompassing sensitive environmental resources. Through
special watershed zoning districts, development should be restricted to
open space uses, or developed on a special exception basis according to
prescribed standards and a site plan review process. Watershed areas
that warrant this level of protection include:

� Coastal floodplains
� Erodible, shallow, and wet soils
� Steep and long slopes and bluff areas
� Water/land and wetland edges

Floodplain development constitutes an unnecessary threat to
groundwater quality, particularly when based on septic tank systems.

Floodplain development also incurs unnecessary risks for significant
property damage and loss of life. Revising building, health, and sanitary
codes to require flood proofing of structures, and to prevent the use of
septic tanks are measures frequentlyIutilized to deal with these problems.
However, floodplain zoning is a means of fully alleviating development
problems in floodplains. Floodplain zoning should be used in conjunction
with existing town zoning ordinances to restrict future floodplain develop-
ment to open space uses.

Development on shallow, erodible, or wet soils and on steep
slopes often results in soil erosion and inadequate purification of septic
system effluents, as well as higher construction and maintenance costs
to the individual or town. While the State Department of Health evaluates
the suitability of soils and slopes for septic system development, the
towns should consider further evaluation of development on these re-
sources in order to avoid or mitigate the other environmental and cost
impacts. As with North Kingstown's overlay districts, the towns could
require technical site plan review of development on slopes greater than
15 percent, soils with bedrock or water table within four feet of the
surface and with an erodibility factor (K) greater [email protected]. As a
management tool, site plan review has the flexibility needed to manage
resources for which the type and severity of problems and the range of
solutions -- sitiny, construction techniques, protective measures -- will
vary considerably.

The principal problems associated with development on bluffs and
water/land and wetland edges are surface and groundwater pollution
stemming from increased erosion and septic tank leaching. These problems
can be mitigated through standards prescribing minimum setback distances
and restricting the clearing and thinning of natural vegetation. (These
standards are described in the Appearance and Design section.)

MANY ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS CAN BE CIRCUMVENTED THROUGH SOUND COMPRE-
HENSIVE PLANNING.

.Comprehensive planning can be used to identify prospective en-
vironmental problems in advance of land use development. Through a com-
prehensive planning process, the towns can identify potential watershed
growth areas and determine the minimum facilities (e.g., sanitary and

1See Reading List and Contacts: Nos 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

storm water sewers) that will be necessary to accommodate development
without adversely affecting the environment.1 The facilities should be
programmed as future public projects or established as minimum conditions
for subdivision approval.

The towns should be encouraged to establish ongoing data collec-
tion programs to support this form of planning. South Kingstown and
Narragansett should assign high priority to assembling detailed soils
information as part of this process. The Rhode Island Department of
Natural Resources should also be encouraged to participate in the process
by reinstituting the Division of Fish and Game resource monitoring program.

IMPROVED MANAGEMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES CAN BE AIDED BY UTILIZA-
TION OF LOCAL AND STATE PERMIT PROGRAMS.

Existing authorities of the Coastal Resources Management Council,
Department of Natural Resources, Department of Health,and corollary local
programs provide a framework within which Narrow River resources can be
managed. These resources could be afforded increased protection if the
concern reflected in existing permit programs were broadened to include
the following:

* The implications of the bedrock valley for the safe and
effective functioning of on-site septic systems

* The cumulative effects of a concentrated number of septic systems
on the ground and surface waters

* The potential decrease in river water quality from sedimentation
and overland urban runoff generated by all watershed developments

The Coastal Resources Management Council, and its evolving
critical environmental areas program and associated permit requirements,
would provide a particularly effective means of safeguarding key environ-
mental areas within the watershed.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are organized according to those

1See Reading List and Contacts: NOS 16, 17

measures than can be implemented under existing legislation and will be
effective in the short term, and those whose implementation and effec-
tiveness will span several years (Map 14).

Immediate action

� The towns should be encouraged to establish the following spe-
cial zoning districts: 1) 100-year coastal floodplain zoning
districts on which no further development except recreational
and other open space uses would be allowed and 2) watershed
protection zoning districts defined by soil and slope conditions
within which development would be subjected to additional site
plan review. Bluffs would be protected under one category of
this type of zoning district.

� The towns and the state should be encouraged to utilize exist-
ing regulatory powers to their full extent to manage and protect
watershed resources, particularly tidal and freshwater wetlands
and water quality.

� Narragansett and South Kingstown should request Soil Conserva-
tion Service soil surveys for their towns.

Long-term action

� The towns should plan storm runoff drainage and treatment sys-
tems in advance of development and should require developers to
construct, donate, or otherwise comply with the plan through
zoning and subdivision ordinances.
I
.The Department of Health or local governments should further
study the effect of the bedrock ledge on septic system func-
tioning and the cumulative effects of a number of systems on
ground or surface water and should revise building permit pro-
cesses accordingly.

� The Department of Natural Resources should reinstitute a re-
source monitoring program for the Narrow River.

� The Coastal Resources Management Council should investigate the
possibility of designating key watershed enviromental areas as
critical enviromental areas under the auspices of the Coastal
Resources Management Council Act of 1971.

AFIPEARANCE AND DESIGN

The cultural and natural aesthetic resources of the watershed can
be managed to enhance the character of the river corridor and of community
development.

THE EXTENT AND DENSITY OF WOODLAND AREAS CAN BE PRESERVED AS CHARACTER-
ISTIC AESTHETIC RESOURCES OF THE WATERSHED.

The natural and aesthetic qualities of the woodland areas can be
protected most effectively through acquisition of scenic easements. Land-
owners could also be provided incentives for voluntary conservation of
these resources through preferential tax assessments provided for under
the Farm, Forest, and Open Space Act (see Developing Open Space, Recre-
ational and Educational Resources). In addition, zoning standards limiting
the cutting of vegetation can be adopted by the towns. These standards
should reflect the importance of maintaining both*existing canopy trees
(except in carrying out forest management practices) and the extent or
area coverage of woodlands. The aesthetic and ecological importance of
woodlands on the bluff face and crest and at water/land and wetland edges
should also be recognized through additional restrictions.

Such an ordinance should specify that woodland cutting shall be
permitted only to the extent necessary to undertake the allowed land use.
For any use, the maximum clearcut or thinning allowed within a 10 year
period should be limited as shown in the table on-the following page.1

USE OF THE SHORELINE EDGE ALONG THE NARROW RIVER CAN BE REGULATED TO
ENHANCE AESTHETIC QUALITY.

. The aesthetic quality of docks and shoreline protection facilities
should be considered during Corps of Engineers and local review of proposed
facilities. Conservation of the natural wetland or vegetated water's edge
should be required, with natural and well-maintained plantings to stablize
shoreline slopes. If structural solutions are necessary, stone riprap or
wood pilings are preferable to concrete walls or boulder riprap. Onland
storage of small boats with launching from ramps is preferable to small
marina dredging and single-lot docks in terms of shoreline aesthetics.

1See Reading List and Contacts: Nos 17, 18.

Proposed Cutting and Thinning Standards

7-
Maximum allowed thinning
or cutting of:
Area to which Tree >3" diam. All woodland
standard found on acreage on
applies property property Additional restrictions
Bluff face No building may project
and crest above the treeline to a
height > 25% of the height
of the downhill trees.
Water/land 25% Within 35' of the edge,
and wetland 40% or no more than 20' for
edges 10 acres every 100' of shoreline
property may be cleared.

Other water-
shed wood- 50%
lands

MAINTAINING AND ENCHANCING THE AESTHETIC QUALITY OF ROAD CORRIDORS IS
AN IMPORTANT GOAL OF THE CONCEPT PLAN.

Within the publicly-owned rights-of-way and, with owner permis-
sion, on lands abutting the rights-of-way, the state and local govern-
ments can utilize existing road maintenance programs to selectively clear
scrub vegetation along Route 1A, Gilbert Stuart Road, and Bridgetown Road
to reveal stone walls, woodlands, and views of the upper ponds. Although
most states do-not allocate funds for post-construction landscaping, the
Rhode Island Department of Transportation could be encouraged to utilize
highway beautification funds for roadside canopy tree planting along
.1oute 1A as a designated scenic highway. If stretches of Route 1 are
upgraded to limited access status within the watershed, the state should
be encouraged to acquire scenic easements in addition to the right-of-way
to include the -full visual corridor of the road.

The bay vistas along Route IA should be preserved, and can be
through acquisition of a scenic easement across the foreground of the
view. The specific conditions of the easements will vary depending on
the character of the existing view, but should include provisions for
preventing obstruction of the view with structures or vegetation and

for preventing the development of distractive elements in terms of color,
signage, scale, and materials.

The achievement of clustered and compact community development
within a context of broad open space areas, as represented by the concept
plan, will in general enhance the aesthetic quality of views from the
road corridor. For development within the corridor but beyond the right-
of-way, design and siting guidelines can be adopted by local governments.
Through site plan review of subdivisions and individual homes or busines-
ses, developers should be encouraged or required to retain the roadside
canopy trees and hedgerows along Route 1A, Middlebridge Road, and Gilbert
Stuart Road. By similar means, development along Route 1 should be en-
couraged or required to occur behind woodland edges or, in open areas,
behind a setback zone defined by existing woodland edges.

The height, size, and types of uses zoned along the roads is
appropriate to the aesthetic character of the corridor. On all roads
except Route 1, particular care should be taken to maintain this scale
and character of uses in the future. On Route 1, larger scale develop-
ments could be visually accommodated but should be sited outside the road
corridor. While the proposed and existing sign ordinances for South Kings-
town and North Kingstown represent strong and effective aesthetic con-
trols, that of Narragansett may not be sufficiently strong to maintain
the aesthetic quality of a scenic highway. In addition, the planted buffers
required for roadside commercial services or subdivisions should be
compatible with the character of existing vegetation: canopy trees on
Route IA and canopy tree masses on Route 1.

Appearance and Design Recommendations (Map 14)
In order to protect the aesthetic and ecological values of water-
shed woodlands, the towns should adopt zoning standards limiting
the cutting and thinning of woodland vegetation. Additional
and stricter standards should be adopted to limit the extent of
acreage cut on the western bluff (North Kingstown and South Kings-
.town) and at water/land and wetland edges.

The towns should consider the aesthetic ramifications of shoreline
protection facilities and structures when reviewing such applica-
tions for the Corps of Engineers.

In order to maintain and enhance the aesthetic quality of the
road corridors, the towns and state should 1) institute a
right-of-way maintenance program for selective clearing of
underbrush and vines on Route 1A, Gilbert Stuart and Bridgetown
Roads, 2) acquire or solocit the dedication of scenic easements
in the foreground of bay vistas from Route 1A, and 3) adopt
guidelines for road corridor development concerning setbacks,
landscaping, signage, and size of structure, and encourage or
require conformance with the guidelines.

RIVER USE MANAGEMENT

As the various river corridor park programs evolve, the Narrow
River could become a means of transporting recreationists from area to
area. If increased boat usage on the river and upper ponds leads to
excessive conflict with shore resources or other uses, limited forms
of boat management may need to be instituted to asure that safety
hazards or use conflicts are avoided. As boat use increases, conflicts
and hazards will stem primarily from the incompatibility of high speed
motorized boating with non-motorized, less maneuverable boats . Institu-
tion of a five mile per hour maximum speed limit would provide sufficient
basis for controlling these problems. The State Division of Boating
Safety could be encouraged to impose and enforce such a speed limit as
boat usage reaches an unsatisfactory level.

Shoaling to shallow depths at the river mouth and in the vicinity
of Middlebridge Bridge has created problems for motorboat use on the
river. Any proposals to solve this problem should be undertaken only
after a careful environmental assessment. While the proposed solution
of spot dredging in the problem areas and/or Middlebridge Bridge recon-
struction to prevent shoaling represents the most "limited-action"
approach to problem solution to date, decisions to proceed should be
based on an evaluation of its effectiveness in meeting project goals,
its impact on river biota and hydrology, its cost in relationship to
the benefits, and the effects of potentially increased motorboat use
enabled by the project.

RIVER USE RECOMMENDATIONS

The State Division of Boating Safety should be encouraged to
adopt and enforce a five mile per hour speed limit on the Narrow
River as boat usage on the river reaches unsatisfactory levels.

South Kingstown and NaAAaganzett shoutd undeAtake the tecon-
stAuction o6 Middtebtidge BAidge and spot dAedging onty a6te)L
ca&e6ut enviAonmentaZ ",sezsment.

ORGANIZATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

A plan combined with an implementation strategy and sound or-
ganizational framework can become a reality. The various implementation
measures and concepts presented in this report will involve unilateral
actions on the part of local governments, residents of the Narrow River
watershed, and several state agencies. To assure that these actions are
initiated and sustained, as well as carefully coordinated, a well-organ-
ized implementation structure may be required. The following approaches
describe alternative means of organizing plan implementation.

Existing local and state intergovernmental coordination pro-
cesses could provide an adequate basis for plan implementation. If all
involved agencies wholly adopt the recommendations of the plan, plan
implementation could evolve according to the recommended strategy.

The Tri-Town Narrow River Planning Committee could be reorganized,
or succeeded by a permanent inter-town commission (or alternatively three
separate town commissions) to work with and advise state and local agencies,
and private land owners and citizens in the implementation of the plan.
The committee or its successor could in effect be established as a permanent
managerial-advisory group for the corridor plan.

A new structure could be created in the form of a joint state-local
commission to guide the implementation of the plan. The commission could
be empowered to monitor local regulation of watershed development and to
appeal.local decisions if they were inconsistent with the adopted water-
shed plan. The appeals process should be based on existing appellate
entities including, for example, the zoning boards of appeals at the
town level, and the appellate structures associated with state permit pro-
grams. The commission could be empowered to acquire and hold land and
could be provided a permanent source of revenue (perhaps bonding) to
finance land acquisition. The Adirondack Commission of the State of New
York was established to govern development in and around the Adirondack
State Park and could be used as a model for developing the Narrow River
Commission.1

lSee Reading List and Contacts: NOS 3,4.

ORGANIZATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS

The Tri-Town Committee should be re-organized or succeeded by
an inter-town commission as a permanent structure within the
watershed to advise and coordinate the actions of local and
state government in plan implementation.

a The state legislature should be encouraged to enact legislation
creating a watershed commission to manage the development of the
recreational and educational program and land use development
throughout the watershed.

references

Coastal Resources Management Act, Chapter 279, Section 42-23-1 to 42-23-12,
Public Laws of Rhode Island, 1971.

Coastal Zone Management Act, Public Law 92-583, 92nd Congress, S. 3507,
1972.

Cooper, Richard A., Early Life History and Spawning Migration of the
Alewife, Alosa pseudoharengus, thesis, University of Rhode Island:
1961.

Division of Fish and Game and Narragansett Marine Laboratory, "Pettaguam-
scutt River Investigation," Rhode Island: February 14, 1958.

Farm, Forest, and Open Space Act, Chapter 44-27,*General Laws of Rhode
Island, 1968.

Freshwater Wetlands Act, Chapter 213, Section 2-1-18 to 2-1-24, Public
Laws of Rhode Island, 1971 as ammended in 1974.

Gaines, Arthur George Jr., The Pettaguamscutt River Estuary, dissertation,
University of Rhode Island: 1975a.

Gaines, Arthur George Jr., written communication, summer, 1975b.

Gustafson, Gregory C. and Wallace, L.T., "Differential Assessment as Land
Use Policy: The California Case," Journal of the American Institute
of Planners, Volume 41, No. 6, November, 1975.

Hicksi Steacy D., "Distribution of Salinity," in"Pettaguamscutt River
Investigation: Division of Fish and Game and Narragansett Marine
Laboratory, Rhode Island: January 14, 1958.

Horton, Donald B., The Occurrence and Distribution of Fish in Upper
Pettaquamscptt River as Related to Certain Chemical and Physical
Variables, thesis, University of Rhode Island: 1958.

Kupa, John J. and Whitman, William R., "Land-cover Types of Rhode Island:
an Ecological Inventory," Bulletin 409, Kingston, Rhode Island: Univer-
sity of Rhode Island Agricultural Experiment Station, 1972.

Lambiase-, J.J., Distribution and Movement of Sediments in the Narrows
of the Pettaguamscutt River, thesis, University of Rhode Island: 1972.

Oviatt, Candace, Garber, Jonathan, and Nixon, S.W., Variation in Eco-
logical Measures in Ten Rhode Island Salt Marshes: An Evaluation
Attempt, unpublished report to the University of Rhode Island Coastal
Resources Center, 1975.

Repasz, C.J. and Hargraves, P., "Coliform, Study of Pettaquamscutt River
June - September, 1974," prepared for the Dunes Club, Narragansett
Pier, Rhode Island.

Rhode Island Department of Health, Division of Water Supply and Pollution
Control, "Standards of Quality for Classification of Waters of the
State," 1973.

Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program, State Land Use Policies and
Plan, Report Number 22, Providence, Rhode Island: January, 1975.

Saila, Saul B. and Horton, Donald, "Fisheries Investigation and Management
in Rhode Island Lakes and Ponds," Fisheries Publication No. 3, Rhode
Island Department of Agriculture and Conservation, Division of Fish and
Game, November 1957.

Seavey, George L., Rhode Island's Coastal Natural Areas: Priorities for
Protection and Management, Kingston, Rhode Island: University of
Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center, 1975.

Tafuri, Anthony N., "Pollution From Urban Land Runoff," News of Environ-
mental Research in Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
April 11, 1975.

United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Chemistry and Soils,
"Soil Survey, Kent and Washington Counties, Rhode Island," Series 1934,
No. 9, February, 1939.

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Rhode
Island Soil-Interpretation Tables, undated.

United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Interim
Soil Survey Report for North Kingstown, Rhode Island, West Warwick,
Rhode Island: April, 19,74.

United States Geological Survey, "Ground-water Map of the Narragansett
Pier Quadrangle, Rhode Island," by Glenn W. Hahn, Rhode Island Water
Resources Coordinating Board, 1959.

United States Geological Survey, "Ground-water Map of the Wickford Quad-
rangle, Rhode Island," by Karl E. Johnson and Lawrence Y. Marks, Rhode
Island Water Resources Coordinating Board, 1959.

University of Massachusetts, Environmental Base Study, prepared for the
National Park Service, Amherst, Massachusetts: August, 1972.

Wright, T.J., Cheadle, V.I. and Palmatier, E.A., "A Survey of Rhode
Island's Salt and Brackish Water Ponds and Marshes," Pittman Robertson
Pamphlet No. 2, Rhode Island Department of Agriculture and Conservation,
Division of Fish and Game, May, 1949.
r e. a di n g 11* s t
a colitacts

1. Roy Mann Associates, Inc., Shoreline Appearance and Design: A Planning
Handbook, Long Island Sound Study, prepared for the National
Park Service and the New England River Basins Commission, April, 1975.
Contact New England River Basins Commissio n, 55 Court Street,
Boston, Massachusetts 02108.

2. Real Estate Research Corporation, The Costs of Sprawl, Environmental
and Economic Costs of Alternative Residential Development Patterns
at the Urban Fring , prepared for the U.S. Council on Environmental
Quality, Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Housing
and Urban Development, April, 1974.

3. Adirondack Park Agency, "Adirondack Park Land Use and Development Plan,"
undated.

4. Adirondack Park Agency, Ray Brook, New York 12977

5. Conservation Law Foundation of New England, Inc., Gifts of Land for
Conservation, undated.
Contact the Conservation Law Foundation, 506 Statler Office Building,
Boston, Massachsuetts 02116

6. Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, The Formation of
Land Trusts and Watershed Associations,1973.

7. Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, South State
Street, Concord, New Hampshire 03301.

8. Trustees of Reservations, 224 Adams, Milton, Massachusetts 02186.

9. Land Trust Service Bureau, The Nature Conservancy, P.O. Box MMM,
Wesleyan State, Middletown, Connecticut 06457.

10. Gustafson, Gregory C. and Wallace, L.T., "Differential Assessment as
Land Use Policy: The California Case", Journal of the American
Institute of Planners, Vol. 41, No. 6, November, 1975.

11. Beckett Jackson Raeder Inc., Michigan Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Guidebook, prepared for the Michigan Water Resources
Commission, Bureau of Water Management, 1975.

Contact Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of
Water Management, Lansing, Michigan 48926

12. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Guidelines
for Soil and Water Conservation in Urbanizing Areas of Massachusetts,
Amherst, Massachusetts, April, 1975.

13. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Erosion
and Sediment Control Handbook, West Warwick, R.I., 1972.

14. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Controllina
Erosion on Construction Sites, Agriculture Information Bulletin 347,
1970.

Contact U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. 20402.

15. National Association of Conservation Districts, Suggested Guidelines and
Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Programs, undated.

Contact National Association of Conservation Districts, P.O. Box 855,
League City, Texas 77573.

16. Urban Land Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers, and National
Association of Home Buildings, Residential Storm Water Management,
1975.

Contact Urban Land Institute, 1200 18th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20036.

17. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Quality Management Planning
for Urban Runoff, EPA 440/9-75-004, December, 1974.

Contact U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Planning
and Management, Washington, D.C. 20460.
73

18. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Division of Resource
Development, Wisconsin's Shoreland Protection Ordinance,
December, 1967.

Contact Division of Resource Development, Room 421, State Office
Building, 1 W. Wilson Street, Madison, Wisconsin 53702.

19. Whyte, William H., Cluster Development, New York: American Conservation
Association, 19@-4.

20. McHarg, Ian L., Design With Nature, Garden City, New York: Natural
History Press, Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1969.

Published by the Tri-Town Narrow River Planning Committee, South Kingstown, R.I. 02879
For additional information, contact Robert T. O'Neill, Chairman, c/o South Kingstown Town Hall

NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY

3 6668 14110513 2

NOAA COA.TAL @EOVICES CTR LIB.AIIY

3 6668 14110513 2