oceanSAMP - Rhode Island Sea GrantGraphics consultant: Kim Plosia All photos property of URI Coastal Resources Center/Rhode Island Sea Grant College Program except where noted. 2 U

The Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan: Managing Ocean Resources Through Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning

A Practitioner’s Guide

2013

By Jennifer McCann and Sarah Schumann

With Grover Fugate, Sue Kennedy, and Chip Young

Monica Allard-Cox, Editor

oceanSAMP2297.COV_P 4/5/13 2:47 PM Page 1

2297.COV_P 4/5/13 2:38 PM Page 2



2013




U.S.D

EPARTMENT OF

COMM

ERCE

NATIONALOCEA

NICAN

D ATMOSPHERIC

ADMINISTRATION

2297.P01_23_P 4/10/13 7:29 PM Page 1

Additional copies of this publication are available from the University of RhodeIsland Coastal Resources Center/Rhode Island Sea Grant College Program bycontacting (401) 874-6107 or [email protected]. Visit the web site athttp://seagrant.gso.uri.edu/.

Loan copies of this publication are available from the National Sea Grant Library, Pell Library Building, University of Rhode Island Bay Campus, Narragansett, RI 02882-1197.

This publication is sponsored by the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Centerand the Rhode Island Sea Grant College Program. The U.S. Government is authorized to produce and distribute reprints for governmental purposesnotwithstanding any copyright notation that may appear hereon.

This document should be referenced as: McCann, J. and S. Schumann, with G. Fugate, S. Kennedy, and C. Young. 2013.The Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan: Managing Ocean Resources Through Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning. University of Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center/Rhode Island Sea Grant College Program, Narragansett, R.I.

Graphics consultant: Kim Plosia

All photos property of URI Coastal Resources Center/Rhode Island Sea GrantCollege Program except where noted.

2

U.S.D

EPARTMENT OF

COMM

ERCE

NATIONALOCEA

NICAN

D ATMOSPHERIC

ADMINISTRATION

2297.P01_23_P 4/10/13 7:30 PM Page 2

3

Foreword ........................................................................................................................................ 4

Creating the Ocean SAMP The Process ............................................................................................................................ 7The Area .................................................................................................................................. 8The Team................................................................................................................................. 8The Data ..................................................................................................................................10The Policy Cycle ...................................................................................................................13The Funding ...........................................................................................................................14The Goals & Principles .......................................................................................................14The Stakeholders .................................................................................................................17

Ocean SAMP Implementation Encouraging Appropriate Development ...................................................................24Monitoring Requirements for Development ............................................................27Coordination..........................................................................................................................28Putting the Ocean SAMP into Practice......................................................................30A Living Document..............................................................................................................31Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................31

Ocean SAMP Resources and ResearchThe Ecosystem......................................................................................................................33Cultural and Historical Resources.................................................................................36Commercial and Recreational Fishing........................................................................38Transportation and Navigation Resources ................................................................41Recreation and Tourism Resources .............................................................................43Climate Change....................................................................................................................47Prospective New Uses of the Ocean SAMP.............................................................48

Assessing ProgressMarine Spatial Planning as a Tool .................................................................................52Tracking the Process of Coastal Governance ..........................................................52Tracking the Outcomes of Coastal Governance ....................................................54Assessing the Achievement of the First Order Outcomes................................55

Acronyms..........................................................................................................................................61

Literature Cited .............................................................................................................................62

Table of Contents

2297.P01_23_P 4/5/13 12:05 PM Page 3

Foreword By JENNIFER McCANN

and GROVER FUGATE

In 2008, we found ourselves with theproject of a lifetime: the opportunityto give the state a comprehensiveregulatory plan for its ocean watersthat reflects exceptional science,rigorous yet flexible policies, and ex-tensive public participation—a planthat would give Rhode Islanders asignificant role in determining howthe state’s offshore waters should bedeveloped, or simply be left alone.

The project seemed daunting. In twoyears—a short time frame, as coastaland ocean planning goes—we wouldtry as fully as possible to understand

how the ocean waters off of RhodeIsland are already being used bypeople and wildlife, develop regula-tions to minimize conflict betweenuses, determine where offshore re-newable energy should be sited andmanaged, and gain public approvaland buy-in for the process and its future goals. This venture would demand that we apply our existingknowledge of coastal managementtools and techniques to the oceanrealm, a bigger challenge than anyof us had faced before.

Now, thanks to innumerable skilled,talented, and concerned individualsand organizations that daily broughttheir best thinking and brightest talents to the task, Rhode Island hasan ocean spatial plan that is a leadingnational model for how to both develop and implement such a plan. Called the Rhode Island Ocean

Special Area Management Plan(Ocean SAMP), the finished productaccommodates present uses and responsibly accounts for the emergence of new ones. It is now,and always will be, a dynamic, adaptive plan.

The Ocean SAMP is helping RhodeIsland decide, as collaboratively andopenly as possible, where it makesthe most sense for people to domany things: build offshore renew-able wind turbines, fish commerciallyand recreationally, protect habitat,sail and race boats—the list is longand varied. The array of coastalmanagement tools and strategies to achieve that aim is equally far-ranging, and includes strengthening federal consistency capabilities andcoordination policies, establishingadvisory boards, and ensuring thatmajor stakeholders and regulatoryagencies are connected to the effortas it moves into implementation.

It was developed through a processdesigned to honor traditional usesand reduce conflicts. Its policies reflect science and stakeholder involvement. We have established adiverse team of experts who havecreated the University of Rhode Island Center of Excellence forOcean Spatial Planning and OffshoreRenewable Energy, and nurtured apartnership with other organizations,including Roger Williams Universityin Rhode Island, Cranfield Universityin the United Kingdom, and Den-mark’s University of Aarhus, thatcontinues to grow and prosper. ForRhode Islanders, the Ocean SAMP,

A healthy economy and a healthy ocean go hand in hand. This plan enables both. This plan willcreate jobs, while helping to meet the WhiteHouse’s energy goal of reducing the nation’s useof oil by one-third by a little more than a decadefrom now.

DR. JANE LUBCHENCO, FORMER UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE FOR OCEANS AND ATMOSPHERE AND NOAA ADMINISTRATOR4

2297.P01_23_P 4/10/13 7:30 PM Page 4

an area that includes a body of wateralmost the same size as the entirestate, has been able to:

• Provide 54 percent of the entirestudy area with increased ecological protection

• Identify a 13 square-mile renewableenergy zone in state waters that directs development to a locationwith the least conflict between existing uses and the natural environment, while streamlining the regulatory process

• Place Rhode Island in a powerfulposition to determine how andwhere development should takeplace in nearby federal waters

• Provide a specific and requiredframework that constructively engages major stakeholders includ-ing fishermen, alternative energyproponents, environmentalists, scientists, federal and state agen-cies, the Narragansett Indian tribe,and concerned citizens in the implementation of the Ocean SAMP

• Streamline the regulatory processfor the installation of offshore windturbines, while minimizing the impact on natural systems and existing activities such as com -mercial and recreational fishing

New science continues to provide theOcean SAMP with better informationto implement regulatory actions inboth federal and state waters spe -cifically for offshore wind turbines. Developers are required to meet withfishermen from Rhode Island andneighboring Massachusetts as devel-opment proceeds. Researchers andenvironmentalists are working

together to identify and help resolvehabitat concerns. Federal agencies,including the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, are required to fully employ the content of theOcean SAMP and its process as theymake decisions on future wind turbine development and siting.

The pages of this publication describe the Ocean SAMP process, aswell as present some of the strategiesthat were applied to achieve its goals.As we start sharing lessons learnedwith others from prior planning andcurrent implementation, others cancollaboratively “SAMP” their coastaland ocean waters.

We invite you to explore this practitioner’s guide. It is exciting and rewarding to be able to share RhodeIsland’s ocean planning effort andhelp build the capacities of othercoastal places—perhaps yours—to ensure the protection and use of marine resources for this and ongoing generations.

SIGNATURE IMAGEJennifer McCannDirector of U.S. Coastal Programs,URI Coastal Resources CenterDirector of Extension Programs, Rhode Island Sea Grant College Program

Grover Fugate Executive Director R.I. Coastal Resources ManagementCouncil

“The ocean is critical to our economy and ourway of life here in Rhode Island. The SAMP isan important tool that relies on both scienceand public input to help us develop strategiesto protect and manage our ocean and coastalresources. The Ocean SAMP could help set the national standard for developing acomprehensive and cooperative approach to state and regional ocean resourcemanagement.”

U.S. SENATOR JACK REED

5

2297.P01_23_P 4/5/13 1:54 PM Page 5

6

A SPECIAL PLAN FOR A SPECIAL PLACE:

Creating the Ocean SAMP

2297.P01_23_P 4/10/13 7:30 PM Page 6

The ProcessRhode Island’s Ocean Special AreaManagement Plan (Ocean SAMP) isa multi-pronged planning tool builton three integrated approaches: research, policy making, and publicengagement. Each of these ele-ments provides a unique perspectiveon the Ocean SAMP area; combined,they provide a comprehensive, versatile and powerful means tomanage this valuable resource.

In October 2010, the R.I. Coastal Resources Management Council(CRMC) formally approved thestate’s Ocean SAMP. The documentmaps Rhode Island’s ocean waters

and surrounding federal waters inorder to identify how this region isused, and guide balanced manage-ment of its human and natural re-sources in keeping with the state’senvironmental, social, and economicneeds and concerns.

Federal approval by NOAA soon followed in summer 2011. Accordingto Jane Lubchenco, under secretaryof commerce for oceans and atmos-phere and NOAA Administrator, theOcean SAMP “takes into account allocean uses for enhancing commer-cial, recreational, and environmentalgoals. This plan is what PresidentObama envisioned in the NationalOcean Policy, and it sets a great example for other coastal states.”

The CRMC holds regulatory authorityto manage most activities in statewaters, which extend 3 miles fromshore. Responding to the governor’scall for streamlining the regulatoryprocess for wind turbine installation,and recognizing the need for addi-tional information and public buy-inin order for this to be a successfulproject, the Council proposed to thegovernor the development of anOcean SAMP. (See next page)

The Ocean SAMP is not a final answer, but a start—a start to ensuring that Rhode Island managesits ocean waters not only to protectits riches of natural resources, but to promise they will be there forgenerations to come.

The Energy Imperative

In 2007, Rhode Island Governor Donald Carcieri and the state’s Office of Energy Resources deter-mined that tapping Rhode Island’s offshore wind resources would be an essential step to meeting the state’s goal of deriving 16 percent of its electrical power from Rhode Island’s own renewable sources by 2019.

The governor invited repre -sentatives from Rhode Islandmunici palities, the state’s envi -ronmental community, maritimebusinesses and industry, and governmental officials to partici-pate in discussions regarding thedevelopment of offshore wind energy in state waters. A studydeveloped on behalf of this groupdetermined that offshore windfarms could supply 15 percent ormore of Rhode Island’s electricity.The study also showed that 10specific areas in state waters were suitable for consideration as wind farm locations, based on existing information and considering the “monopile” windturbine structure, which couldonly be installed in waters nodeeper than 25 meters.

7

2297.P01_23_P 4/5/13 12:07 PM Page 7

8

The AreaThe waters featured in the Ocean SAMPresearch and planning process begin 500feet seaward of the Rhode Island coastlineand stretch as far as 30 miles offshore, encompassing portions of Block IslandSound, Rhode Island Sound, and the Atlantic Ocean. This 1,467 square-milearea, nearly the size of the state itself, wasselected for special attention due to itsecological, economic, and cultural value toRhode Island. Although portions of theOcean SAMP region lie beyond the 3-milereach of Rhode Island jurisdiction, the entire area is vital to the state’s way of life.

The TeamCreation of the Ocean SAMP was aided byhaving scientists and project managementprofessionals at URI undertake the necessary research, outreach, and project coordination. These experts had hands-onexperience with the study area and theSAMP process. They also lived in the stateor nearby region, giving their work per-sonal as well as professional significance.

And because many of the people involvedhad already established close working relationships from prior projects, the planwas able to move forward more quickly. Italso aided project managers in identifyingsuch things as who worked well togetherand who could work under pressure anddeal comfortably with the public, whichmaximized everyone’s overall contribution.

What’s a SAMP? Special Area Management Plans - SAMPs are ecosystem-basedmanagement strategies designed to preserve and restore ecologicalsystems. Recognized at the federal level as a regulatory document, SAMPsare developed and implemented in coordination with local municipalities, aswell as government agencies and community organizations. Plan elementsincorporate the best available science and are amended as new researchand issues arise.

Through more than 100 public meetings and a public review period thatgarnered over 2,000 responses, everyone from large advocacy groups to individual community members expressed their connections to the OceanSAMP area and their concerns about its future use. Some spoke of a directeconomic interest in the area’s resources, others of the rec reational fulfill-ment they derive from its use, and many more of its ecological role in con-serving and enhancing regional marine life. All emphasized the importanceof using caution when permitting future uses, and of the need to under-stand and address, before the fact, potential impacts from these uses.

By contributing content and commentary to the SAMP document, stakeholders helped craft a governance system for the Ocean SAMP areathat will serve the public’s needs in the long run. The role of stake holdersdid not end with approval of the Ocean SAMP document; various ongoingstakeholder advisory panels give the public a permanent role in guidingOcean SAMP implementation.

Over one hundred scientists played a significant role in working with regulators and stakeholders on better understanding the natural environment and also the potential effects new development, including offshore renewable energy, could have on Rhode Island’s offshore system.

With Ocean SAMP adoption achieved and implementation underway, RhodeIsland continues to better understand state ocean waters and the tools withwhich marine resources can be managed and enhanced for decades tocome.

This is evident in the state’s effort to make full use of its federal con sistencyauthority, and to secure a “geographic location description”— a designationthat will streamline the state’s input to federal decisions concerning devel-opment applications in the Ocean SAMP area. Ongoing research projectscontinue to provide new information about the organisms, habitats, geology,and human uses significant to the area.

CREATING THE OCEAN SAMP

2297.P01_23_P 4/10/13 7:31 PM Page 8

9

2297.P01_23_P 4/5/13 12:08 PM Page 9

CRMC looked to URI—particularly itsGraduate School of Oceanography,Department of Ocean Engineering,College of the Environment and LifeSciences, and Rhode Island SeaGrant College Program—to playleadership roles in the developmentof the SAMP.

URI was respected by many resource users, state and federalagencies, academics, and non-governmental organizations for itsability both to facilitate an open andtransparent process, as well as toprovide objective, science-based research. Members of this URI teamhad previously completed six otherSAMPs for other coastal ecosystemsthroughout the state, and had expe-rience in facilitating discussions be-tween organizations and individualswith intense conflicts. They werealso able to develop and implementa communications strategy that engaged all stakeholders, and utilized diverse media outlets (e.g.,web, public lectures, and stake-holder meetings) to reach the public.

The project team also involved theRoger Williams University School ofLaw Marine Law Institute, home ofthe Rhode Island Sea Grant LegalProgram, to provide legal expertiseas the plan was being developed.

Unlike the state and federal gov -ernment agencies involved, URI’scharge was not to determine whereoffshore wind energy turbinesshould be placed. Rather, it was todo an overall strategic mapping ofthe waters in the Ocean SAMP

boundary area, stressing future-usepriorities, and identifying conflictsand possible impacts on the marineenvironment. As for a potential windfarm, it was an open questionwhether there would be any place at all suitable for offshore wind turbines, and if so, where and howshould this new industry be man-aged in a way that minimized con-flict with existing and future humanuses, and the natural ecosystem?

High-level decision makers at URIwere key to making things happen.For example, Graduate School ofOceanography academic deansserved on the management team,and attended bi-weekly meetings to assist the project leaders in overcoming political, technical, andadministrative challenges that thatcould have stalled the process.

The DataTo identify research needs, the team reviewed the federal Bureau of Ocean Energy Management(BOEM)-required information foroffshore wind siting and installation,the Cape Wind Environmental Im-pact Statement, the topics discussedin other Rhode Island SAMPs, andspoke to many of the stakeholders.

Early on, Rhode Island Sea Grantheld a multi-day event with re-searchers who had, over the years,researched different aspects of theOcean SAMP study area to gain a

The OrganizationAs seen on the organizational chart, special legal, scientific, stakeholder, state, and federal committees were set up to ensureample engagement by all parties in the process. (Because New York,Connecticut, and Massachusetts abutted the study area, relevantstate agencies from these three states also served on the state agencies committee.) The intent of setting up legal and scientificcommittees was to ensure that major aspects of the Ocean SAMPinitiative were reviewed, and advice provided by these experts.Unfortunately, because of the accelerated Ocean SAMP processtimeline—among other factors—these two committees were not aseffective as expected. Major legal and scientific decisions werenecessary on a daily basis, and there was no time to wait whatmight have been weeks to coordinate schedules and set up meet-ings. The Ocean SAMP management team therefore changed itsinitial operational process, and involved legal and scientific expertsfrom the committees individually, rather than as a group.

10

PROJECT MANAGERGrover Fugate

Executive DirectorRI Coastal Resources Management

Council (CRMC)

FEDERALAGENCYADVISORY

SENIOR ADVISORDennis Nixon

URI Graduate School of Oceanography

STRUCTURES & FOUNDATIONS

ENGINEERING

GEOSPATIAL DATA

PHYSICAL OCEANOGRAPHY

GEOSPATIAL DATA

MARINE MAMMALS & TURTLES

AIR QUALITY & METEOROLOGY

SITING STUDY – GEOLOGY ETC.

BIRDS

MARINE ARCHAEOLOGY

STATEAGENCYADVISORY

LEGAL ADVISORY

TASKFORCE

SCIENCE ADVISORY

TASKFORCE

SENIOR ADVISORMalcolm Spaulding

URI Ocean Engineering

FINANCE/ADMIN

OUTREACH &COMMUNI -CATIONS

DATA SYNTHE-SIS & SAMP

FORMULATION

STAKEHOLDERWORKINGGROUP

COMPARATIVE POLICY ASSESSMENT WORKING GROUP

POLICY &GOVERNANCE

NATURALFEATURES

HUMANACTIVITIES

CRMC PR

MEDIA

OUTREACH

MIS

EVENTS

INFO MGMT

} }

CO-PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORData Acquisition

Sam DeBow URI Graduate School of Oceanography

CO-PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORPolicy & OutreachJennifer McCann

URI Coastal Resources Center/RI Sea Grant

2297.P01_23_P 4/10/13 7:39 PM Page 10

11

Expanding the Research FocusThe management team regularly met with the researchers to ensure that the research was responding to the issues and could be incorporated into the development of the SAMP. The Ocean SAMP team developed a set ofquestions that was constantly asked of the researchers. These questions included:

1 Describe how your findings help us understand how the SAMP study area functions as an ecosystem that isheavily impacted by human activities.

2 Has your research identified areas, processes, or resources that should be protected, conserved, or otherwisegiven special consideration by the SAMP?

3 To the best of your knowledge, what has your work revealed that may be relevant to designating areas suit-able/unsuitable for activities such as marine transportation, wind turbines, fisheries, recreational boating, etc.?

4 What, in your opinion, are the potentially significant unknowns in your topic or in the SAMP area that are relevant to the use-zoning and policy development process for the Ocean SAMP? Identify the unknowns youwill likely be providing us at the end of your research.

5 As you look to the future and the likely trajectory of change in human activities and ecosystem conditions over the next 50 years, what are the changes that may be anticipated in the features of the SAMP area? What are the potential implications of such changes as we consider use zoning and the siting of wind farms?

6 Are there specific recommended actions (e.g., regulatory, policy, management) you would like the OceanSAMP to support or implement in response to your findings?

7 What do you think the implications of global climate change will be on your research topic?

This process enabled the team to move research activities beyond simply data-gathering and analysis into the shaping of policy and providing a future vision for the area. In the long run, that resulted in two important decisions made by the management team:

n To designate all waters less than 20 meters in depth to be areas of preservation where no large-scale development would be allowed, which was directly based on the research done by URI and international avian experts.

n To determine the location of the renewable energy zone, which was directly attributable to models by the ocean engineers, seabed characterizations and other research completed by geologists and physical oceanographers, and the information collected from discussions withOcean SAMP stakeholders.

2297.P01_23_P 4/5/13 12:53 PM Page 11

12

better understanding of available information. Through this processnot only was the most current and published information identified, but several insightful but overlookedgray literature and dissertationswere discovered in the URI library.Stakeholders identified existing economic studies done by consult-ants, and retired university profes-sors stepped forward to provideeconomic data—thought to be nonexistent—on past internationalsailboat racing regattas, such as therenowned Newport-to-Bermudarace. Team members also contactedEuropean researchers as well as professionals working in the oil andgas industry to identify existing re-search on the economic, biological,and environmental effects of offshore oil and gas development.

The research topics were prioritizedand projects planned based on theissues identified and the gaps in existing information.

Early in 2011, some scopes of workwere revised once the team realizedthat the developer was not focusingjust on waters shallower than 25 meters, to accommodate monopilewind energy turbines. Instead, dueto new technology, the preferred developer proposed to install a“jacketed turbine design,” withwhich the viable depth for installa-tion now could reach to 60 meters.In addition, in 2011, more funds wereprovided to the team by the stateand the U.S. Department of Energy,which allowed the Ocean SAMP

team to complete necessary additional research tasks.

The process of prioritizing the research as well as describing itsscope was shared during stake-holder meetings and through theweb site. When a researcher wasgoing out on a research vessel ordeploying a buoy to collect data, the Ocean SAMP team sent out a description to the stakeholders ofwhat was happening, what theyshould look for, and why this re-search was going on. When possible,this was captured and disseminatedon video to provide stakeholdersmore information on the process.

Whenever possible, researchers employed local fishermen to engage in the Ocean SAMP research.Fishermen felt that more researchshould be done on fishing and fisheries, and pointed the team in the right direction based upontheir local knowledge. The OceanSAMP team appropriately incor -porated this as the research agendawas developed. In addition, the team met with Narragansett Tribalrepresentatives periodically to exchange information and share results. (There were attempts to invite tribal members onto the research cruises; however, this neversucceeded.) One major tribal con-cern was that a geologist might lookat something as a researcher andnot consider its value or significanceto the tribe.

In the effort to learn as much as possible about the Ocean SAMParea, researchers conducted a broadarray of research activities, including:

• Assessing coastal and offshore birdabundance and distributionthrough land-based, ship-based,and aerial bird counts

• Performing archaeological surveysto identify submerged cultural sites

• Mapping the ocean floor and itsgeological features, using sonar,grab-samples, and underwatervideo cameras

• Mapping commercial and recreational fishing grounds collaboratively with fishermen

• Measuring phytoplankton pro -ductivity, using water samplesgathered by fishermen

• Mapping recreational uses throughconsultation with charter boat captains, sailing regatta organizers,dive boat captains, and whalewatch guides

• Gathering a complete oral historyof the Narragansett Indian tribe

• Considering the impacts of climatechange off Rhode Island’s shoresbased on projections of current regional trends

• Modeling the meteorological,acoustic, and wave environmentsof the Ocean SAMP area in orderto identify appropriate sites andpossible impacts of wind turbines

• Developing an index to rank sites interms of their suitability for windturbine installation


2297.P01_23_P 4/5/13 12:09 PM Page 12

13

The Policy CycleTo develop the Ocean SAMPprocess, the SAMP team applied the policy cycle developed by theURI Coastal Resources Center, which had helped create the state’sfirst coastal management policy inthe 1970s.

• The process, adopted by theUnited Nations, is a five-step ap-proach to plan and track ecosys-tem-based management projectsover short-term and long-termtime frames. The team focused oncompleting steps 1 through 3 in the

policy cycle. Major components ofthis cycle included the need to:

• Develop time-bound and measur -able social and environmentalgoals that were supported and understood by all user groups

• Build support from well-informedresource users

• Develop sufficient capacity to bothdevelop and implement the OceanSAMP

• Obtain formal adoption of theOcean SAMP at both the state andfederal levels

The Ocean SAMP TimelineAugust 1, 2008 – July 31, 2010

In order to ensure the public and the Ocean SAMP team was clearon the process and when the different components of the policycycle were planned to be implemented, the team developed a gen-eral timeline. To maintain accountability, the timeline was featuredat every major meeting and prominent on the web site.

A Strategic Process for Effecting ChangeMore sustainable forms of coastal development

Step 1: Issue Identification/Assessment

JULY 2008 JULY 2009 JULY 2010

• Define boundaries,goals and principles

• Set up public engagement

• Prepare technical information

• Identify issues/concerns and opportunities

• Prepare draft ecosystem and use zone maps

• Review goals andboundaries

• Develop objectives and policies

• Draft SAMP chapters

• Continue to conduct research

• Develop burdens of proof for permit applicants

• Formal hearings and reviews of thedraft SAMP

• Adoption of theSAMP by CRMC

• Submit to federalagencies for approval

Step 2: SAMP Preparation

Step 3: Formal Adoption

2297.P01_23_P 4/10/13 7:31 PM Page 13

14

The FundingAlthough the Ocean SAMP team initially requested $6 million to complete the SAMP, the state ini-tially only provided the effort with$3.2 million from the Rhode IslandRenewable Energy Fund. Severalmonths later, the state recognizedthat the SAMP process would likelyput Rhode Island in the lead on off-shore renewable energy installationand additional funds ($2.8 million)were provided by the Rhode IslandEconomic Development Corpora-tion. During Year 2, the U.S. Depart-ment of Energy also contributedfunds ($666,050) to fill in data gapsand continue research activity. Over200 members of the URI faculty andstaff also recognized the significanceof this project, and many of themdedicated a significant amount oftheir state-funded time to the com-pletion of the effort. In addition, the

University agreed to donate the useof its research vessel, the Endeavor,to complete many of the requiredresearch activities. This in-kind support totaled at least $1 million.

Because the major driver for thisproject was to identify locations forwind farm placement that wouldhave the minimum impact on exist-ing uses, the Ocean SAMP required asignificant amount of new informa-tion, and most of the funding wasdevoted to research. Although alsosignificant, the smallest componentof the budget was the SAMP docu-ment development and outreach.This aspect of the budget was ap-plied to project management, includ-ing developing the supported goals,sharing the information with thepublic and decision makers for theformation of policy, synthesizing thescience, and writing the document.

The Goals &PrinciplesThe Ocean SAMP team believed in establishing goals that would respond to the priority issues identi-fied by the stakeholders, and definedesired societal and environmentaloutcomes. Although the proposedwind power projects made accom-plishing these goals all the more urgent, the goals themselves reflecta more comprehensive approach tomanaging ocean resources for thebenefit of the many users, humanand otherwise, that depend on them. This strategy produced thefollowing set of goals everyoneworking on the project, including the stakeholders, sought to adhereto in creating the final plan.

Goals

FOSTER A PROPERLY FUNCTIONING

ECOSYSTEM THAT IS BOTH ECOLOGI-

CALLY SOUND AND ECONOMICALLY

BENEFICIAL. The marine ecosystemoff Rhode Island’s shores provides arange of environmental, economic,and social benefits. But prior to theOcean SAMP, gaps in understandingof this environment stymied com-prehensive management of the area.Accordingly, a major goal of theOcean SAMP is to improve knowl-edge about the area’s ecology andto create policies that restore andmaintain its integrity and resilience.Attaining this goal requires adaptivepolicies to safeguard the natural


Estimate of Ocean SAMP Funds DistributionYEAR FUNDING AMOUNT SYNTHESIS OF GENERATING SAMP DOCUMENT ADMIN. (APP.)SECURED (IN MILLIONS) EXISTING INFO NEW INFO DEVELOP &

AND SOURCE OUTREACH

2010 $3.2 (RI) 40% 15% 35% 10%

2011 $2.8 (RI) 10% 80% 0% 10%

2011 $0.61 (DOE) 30% 40% 20% 10%

2011 $1 (In-kind) 20% 80% 0% 0%

2297.P01_23_P 4/10/13 7:32 PM Page 14

The Ocean SAMP team knewfrom the start that the issuessurrounding the project, no-tably the placement of offshorewind turbines, would be con-tentious. In many cases, such asfor those involved in the fishingindustry, people felt their liveli-hoods were being threatened.Others were worried about possible threats to the ocean environment and wildlife.

Despite their misgivings, manyof the individuals and groups affected became immediately involved in the process using thevehicles created by the OceanSAMP team. While being under-standably concerned, fishermen,shippers, sailors, and otherswere also open to the new science and research being conducted on the area beforepassing judgment on the project.

Thanks to a formal but flexiblestakeholder process that was de-signed to encourage input andparticipation by as many peopleand civic organizations as possi-ble, many voices were heard.The team strived to find theright way to engage the various

stakeholders and to providethem with the information theyneeded in order to feel morecomfortable with the process.

Some of the initial concernsstakeholders expressed included:

Ocean SAMP Process-Based Issues

• This is a “done deal” since thedeveloper of the wind farmwas selected and sites wereidentified prior to the OceanSAMP process

• The developer will have moreaccess to the information andthe public will not be treatedequally

• Stakeholders will not have influence over siting or anyother regulations

• The timeframe is too short todo a well-thought-out process

• How can the Ocean SAMP really reduce the permittingtime frame for the installationof offshore wind turbines?

• How can the Ocean SAMP bejust a routine program changeto the state’s coastal programand not require a major re-view by NOAA?

Ocean SAMP Place-Based Issues(Turbine-specific)

• Wind turbines will restrictfishing and business

• Collisions with the turbinesby boats will be significant

• The area’s marine life andwildlife will be harmed

• Tourists will hate looking atthe turbines, as they spoil thenatural vista

• Power cables are going to affect the health of marinelife, wildlife, and all Rhode Islanders

The Ocean SAMP team workedto bring these concerns to theattention of stakeholders andproject staff alike, and back-and-forth discussions allowedeveryone involved to under-stand the issues more clearly inorder to find an agreeable solu-tion. The trust built betweenthe Ocean SAMP team and allthe stakeholders over thecourse of developing the planhelped in great part to resolvemany of these issues.

INITIAL PUBLIC CONCERNS

15

2297.P01_23_P 4/10/13 7:32 PM Page 15

16


resources of the area in the face of climate change, current human uses,and potential impacts of new uses.

PROMOTE AND ENHANCE EXISTINGUSES. Many different uses take place in the Ocean SAMP area; allcontribute to Rhode Island’s vibrantmaritime culture. In support of theseuses, there needs to be a focus onimproving understanding of existingactivities in the Ocean SAMP area,building productive relationshipswith current resource users, andcrafting policies to minimize potential negative impacts on the way the area is currently employed by identified and projected future uses.

ENCOURAGE MARINE-BASED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THAT CONSIDERS THE ASPIRATIONS OFLOCAL COMMUNITIES, AND IS CONSISTENT WITH AND COMPLE -MENTARY TO THE STATE’S OVERALLECONOMIC HEALTH, FULLY INTEGRATED WITH SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL NEEDS AND GOALS.New uses of the ocean environment,such as offshore wind farms, havethe potential to spur economic development and advance progresstowards societal goals, such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions.However, to assure a net benefit tosociety, the promise of new usesmust be balanced with the benefitsof protecting ecosystems and current uses. For that reason, it isparamount to develop decision-making tools, standards, and performance measures to help

determine appropriate roles for future activities, including offshorerenewable energy, in the OceanSAMP area.

BUILD A FRAMEWORK FOR COORDI-NATED DECISION-MAKING BETWEENSTATE AND FEDERAL MANAGEMENTAGENCIES. The Ocean SAMP areacontains both federal and Rhode Island state waters, and abuts thestate waters of Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York. In lightof the multiple jurisdictions affectedby uses within this area, engagingcombined federal and state agenciesin all phases of the Ocean SAMPprocess is necessary, all the whilepromoting regular communicationamong neighboring states.

Principles

Several key principles were createdto guide the collaborative devel -opment of the Ocean SAMP. Theprinciples responded to the issue ofinformation being available at thesame time to everyone involved, andto ensure that decisions were notmade behind closed doors or without input from the entire group.These principles also helped to ensure that user groups understoodand actively supported the OceanSAMP goals, there was wide publicsupport for the Ocean SAMPprocess, and the Ocean SAMP wasrecognized as important and legiti-mate by institutions that would beinvolved in its implementation.

Setting the GoalsWe learned that goals and principles cannot be formalized during thefirst months, but should be developed once the project team and man-agers have engaged in constructive dialog and once the stakeholdershave a better feel for the project. Eventually, the stakeholder issues willbe incorporated into the goals and principles. This does not mean thestakeholders are 100 percent in agreement with the project, but at leastthey know their opinions and concerns are being taken into considera-tion, that they are legitimate and recognized members of the planningprocess, and that the project team is responding to their issues. We publicly acknowledged stakeholders’ list of concerns and posted it on theproject web site, and we proposed ways the Ocean SAMP team would re-spond to these issues, including providing experts to respond to them.We also worked with stakeholders to document how, where, and whenthe stakeholders used the marine ecosystem in the study area and howthat interaction affected the natural resources. We feel that this processdeveloped a mutual respect among project staff and stakeholders, andthat this helped us ultimately to create a workable and credible plan.

2297.P01_23_P 4/5/13 12:10 PM Page 16

DEVELOP THE OCEAN SAMP DOCU-MENT IN A TRANSPARENT MANNER.Transparency guides the develop-ment of all documents and proce-dures related to the Ocean SAMPproject. Project activities and phasesare designed to be easily under-standable to the general public. Accurate information must be madeavailable to the public in an appro-priate, diverse, and timely manner.

INVOLVE ALL STAKEHOLDERS. Targeted outreach efforts ensure opportunity is available for all stake-holders to have access to the OceanSAMP planning process as early aspossible. Stakeholder participationensures that a broad range of issues,concerns, and creative ideas areheard and examined throughout theSAMP process.

HONOR EXISTING ACTIVITIES. The Ocean SAMP area is a highlyemployed and biologically and economically valuable place, withmajor uses such as fishing, recre-ation and tourism, transportation,and military activities taking placewithin its boundaries. These uses,along with the area’s biology andhabitat, must be fully understoodand highly respected as decisionsfor the incorporation of future activities are determined.

BASE ALL DECISIONS ON THE BESTAVAILABLE SCIENCE. All managementand regulatory decisions will be basedon the best available science and onecosystem-based management approaches. The Ocean SAMP will require that the necessary studies beperformed to better understand

the impact of an activity on the eco system before that future use isapproved. These studies might in-clude gathering information on base-line resource conditions, potentialenvironmental and economic impacts,and possible mitigation measures.

ESTABLISH MONITORING AND EVAL -UATION THAT SUPPORTS ADAPTIVEMANAGEMENT. Incorporating monitoring and evaluation in theOcean SAMP will contribute towardsimplementing a systematic processfor continually improving manage-ment policies and practices—in otherwords, adaptive management—in anenvironment exposed to constantchange. The SAMP process is flexibleenough to react to such changes,and allow plans to be revised in duecourse. A strong stakeholderprocess, coordination among federaland state regulatory agencies, and atransparent monitoring and evalua-tion mechanism ensures this activity.

The StakeholdersOne of the major components of the Ocean SAMP process was the development of the stakeholderprocess. There were three main objectives in bringing together asmany interested groups and indi viduals as possible:

• Identify and prioritize stakeholderand client issues

• Design a public process that wouldprovide stakeholders with both access and influence over decisions

• Collect available information to direct research and policy development

The SAMP team contacted organi zations large and small when forming the stakeholder group. Inaddition to formal groups, membersof the public were invited to attendmeetings and were granted equalfooting with the organizations. Dueto the visibility of this effort, theOcean SAMP team used an experi-enced, well-respected facilitator familiar with the team and the issue,who worked as a volunteer to leadthe monthly stakeholder meetingsand serve as an additional liaison tothe group’s members.

During one of the first meetings, the ground rules for the stakeholderprocess were set down clearly andfirmly: That the Ocean SAMP stake-holder process would be a compre-hensive and meaningful involvementof the stakeholders through operat-ing principles which described groupprocesses and member roles. This included the following:

• The stakeholder process will respect that there are legitimateand informative minority views and concerns that need to be recognized and recorded

• Stakeholder meetings will have the dual purposes of first, provid-ing participants information aboutwhat is happening in the devel -opment of the Ocean SAMP, and second, hearing from stakeholdersand the public, regarding their positions, opinions, and perspectives

“What the stakeholderprocess confirmed isthat Rhode Islandersstrongly and enduringlyvalue the waters offtheir coast. What takesplace in these waters isimportant to life inRhode Island. TheOcean SAMP as amarine spatial plan is avital expression of thosevaluations. The OceanSAMP is more than ascientific and technicaldocument; it is anexpression of theinterests of the State.”

KEN PAYNE, STAKEHOLDER FACILITATOR

CREATION 17

2297.P01_23_P 4/5/13 2:09 PM Page 17


• The chairperson will seek to havethe discussion at stakeholdermeetings be vibrant, and explorenuances of meaning and the valueof issues and concerns raised,while placing a priority on assuringthat all persons are fairly heard andtheir views considered

The overall goal of the stakeholderprocess was to engage a well-in-formed and well-represented con-stituency that would understand the

Ocean SAMP issues and become involved in the creation of the plan.

The Ocean SAMP team set specificobjectives to reach this goal:

• Ensure all stakeholders and citizenshave an opportunity to engage,and are provided access to researchers and decision makersand influence over the final plan

• Organize educational and infor -mational outreach efforts and/or

support existing events that offerthe project team and stakeholdersan opportunity to better understand issues

• Develop communication tools thatwill provide up-to-date informationto all those involved and to thepublic as a whole

One Stakeholder’s Story

Doug Harris is the Preservationist for Ceremonial Landscapes for the Narragansett Indian Tribal HistoricPreservation Office. These comments were taken from an interview with him at the 2012 Ronald C. BairdSea Grant Science Symposium on international marine spatial planning.

“In the first stakeholder meeting at the University of Rhode Island, I was one of the first people to standup to present, and I explained to the rest of the stakeholders there that the oral history of the Narragansett Indian Tribe says that more than 15,000 years ago, the ancient villages of the Narragansettwere out where the ocean is now. And that, as the story goes, the ocean waters began to rise and the people had to evacuate. So what I presented to the stakeholders was, ‘What will you do or what will thisprocess do about these ancient sites that may, in fact, still be intact down under the sediment of the oceanfloor out on the continental shelf?’ That question sort of floated around the room for a number of sessions,and a year and a half later, the ocean geologists came back and said that their studies had determinedthat not only 15,000 years ago, but as long ago as 24,000 years ago, what is now the ocean was an openand grassy plain out on the continental shelf.”

18

2297.P01_23_P 4/5/13 12:54 PM Page 18

Strategies for stakeholderinvolvement

CONSIDER BOTH TRADITIONAL ANDNON-TRADITIONAL STAKEHOLDERS.The team met with all stakeholdersindividually to identify their specificissues. These groups included, butwere not limited to, fishermen, themarine trades industry, the Narra-gansett Tribe, and local unions.Ocean SAMP staff explained theproject, ensured the stakeholdersknew they were invited to fully participate in the development ofthe Ocean SAMP, and determinedappropriate mechanisms to ensurestakeholders were engaged if theproposed activities (e.g., monthlystakeholder group meetings, website) were not adequate.

ASK OTHERS TO IDENTIFY STAKE-HOLDERS. Based on recommenda-tions from the stakeholders, the teammet with individual citizens and/ororganizations who had a specialstory to tell or who had a direct linkto the SAMP that may not have beenclearly evident. For example, re-searchers were initially not awarethat shark diving was an active industry within the Ocean SAMParea, a commercial enterprise thatwas in danger of being overlooked.

DETERMINE IF ANYONE ON THE TEAMHAD AN EXISTING RELATIONSHIPWITH SPECIFIC PEOPLE OR ORGANI-ZATIONS. The Ocean SAMP team realized that the personal touch wasalways best wherever it could be utilized. It was also a practical consideration in a very small state,

where over time people’s networkstend to interweave in ways that maynot occur in a larger population. Theteam identified members who hadan existing relationship with eachstakeholder group to initiate dis -cussions. In this case, the projectleader from the state coastal councilalready had an existing relationshipwith the local Narragansett Tribe, so he facilitated that discussion.Other team members with strong relationships with municipalities andthe fishing community did the firstoutreach there. It was important tomeet stakeholders in small groups.In addition, at least two project teammembers attended every meetingwith stakeholders. Sometimes oneperson on the team could pick up on an item the other did not notice.As the process moved forward,stakeholders had the luxury ofreaching out to different membersof the team with whom they werecomfortable or had a prior workingrelationship. At times, stakeholderspreferred to contact and ask a “silly” question of a graduate student rather than the head of the coastal zone management program. All questions were infor-mally collected and shared with the entire team. This helped projectstaff to respond more effectively to what was on the minds of thestakeholders.

RESEARCH PRIOR TO MEETINGS WHATSTAKEHOLDERS’ INTERESTS WERE,AND ANTICIPATE AND RESPOND TOTHEIR QUESTIONS. The Ocean SAMPteam understood prior to theirmeetings that fishermen would be

19

2297.P01_23_P 4/5/13 12:13 PM Page 19

20


Ken Payne, volunteer moderator Dan Beardsley, Rhode Island League of Cities and TownsJeff Broadhead, Washington County Regional Planning CouncilPaige Bronk, City of NewportJohn Brown, Narragansett Indian TribeChris Brown, RICFA Alison Buckser, Rhode Island Chapter of the Sierra ClubCharlie Cannon, Rhode Island School of DesignJeffry Ceasrine, Town of NarragansettPaul Costabile, NMPAVicki deAngeli, Jamestown Chamber of CommerceLanny Dellinger, RILAJulio DiGiando, Jamestown Town CouncilDenny Dillon, RIPCBATina Dolen, Aquidneck Island Planning CommissionCharlene Dunn, Charlestown Town CouncilBernard Fishman, Rhode Island Historical SocietyRichard Fuka, RIFAGina Fuller, Westerly Town CouncilKim Gaffett, Town of New Shoreham Myrna George, South County Tourism CouncilTricia Jedele, CLFDoug Harris, Narragansett Indian TribeDebbie Kelso, Narragansett Chamber of CommerceMichael Keyworth, RIMTAJohn F. Killoy III, Rhode Island AFL-CIO

Karina Lutz, People’s Power & LightMike Marchetti, ENESAGregg Mataronas, SPFASteve Medeiros, RISAARobert Mushen, Town of Little Compton Ray Nickerson, Town of South Kingstown Eleftherios Pavlides, Wind Power RI Project, RWUMargaret Petruny-Parker, CFRFTed Platz, RIMADavid Prescott, Rhode Island Chapter of theSurfrider Foundation Michael Ryan, National GridPaul Sanroma, Rhode Island Wind AllianceBill Silkes, Ocean State Aquaculture Association Evan Smith, NBCCVB David Spencer, Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen’s AssociationKeith Stokes, Newport County Chamber of CommerceLarry Taft, Audubon Society of Rhode IslandDarlene Towne Evans, South Kingstown Chamber of CommerceKathleen Wainwright, TNCRussell Wallis, OSFAWendy Waller, STBLaurie White, Greater Providence Chamber of CommerceJessica Dugan Willi, Block Island Tourism CouncilRonald Wolanski, Town of Middletown

Ocean SAMP Stakeholders

2297.P01_23_P 4/5/13 12:55 PM Page 20

concerned about access and possi-ble impacts on all aspects of fish andthe fishing industry. The teamlearned that the fishermen were ex-tremely concerned about the poten-tial effects that electromagneticfields and noise (e.g., pile driving)would have on fish. Team leaders invited European experts to meetwith the fishermen to discuss themore advanced European fisheriesexperience. The team recognizedthat environmental organizationswould be very concerned aboutwildlife, and was able to respondcomprehensively to those concerns.One aspect, however, that was notanticipated was that environmentalattorneys were very concernedabout what “real” regulatory powerthe SAMP would have. In response,the team organized special meetingsamong NOAA legal staff and theconcerned organizations to discussthis critical, long-term issue.

LISTEN AND UNDERSTAND.Team members recognized thatstake holders should not have to always go to Ocean SAMP events;rather the team established a two-way street for learning andcommunication, which included having members of the OceanSAMP team attend or participate instakeholders’ events. Additionally, inmeeting with stakeholders, the teamnot only asked about their concerns,they also asked stakeholders spe -cifically what they would like to getout of the effort. The team soughtto address issues personally orthrough arranging meetings with experts, and they also ensured

these concerns were reflected in the SAMP document. Stakeholders reviewed the SAMP chapter bychapter, and CRMC established anextended comment period for thefinal document to allow extensivepublic input.

PROVE YOU ARE LISTENING. The teamwrote down what members heard at

meetings or at outreach events, andsent the summary to the people whooffered their input. For the fisher-men, the team wrote up their issuesof concern as they were perceivedand ways in which the team couldbest respond to their needs, andmost importantly, followed up onany agreed-upon actions. This workwas also posted on the web site.

21

2297.P01_23_P 4/5/13 2:12 PM Page 21

Eventually, an entire section of thesite was dedicated to this communi-cation with the fishing community.

IF STAKEHOLDERS ARE NOT ENGAG-

ING, CALL THEM AND MEET AGAIN.

The Ocean SAMP team frequentlycommunicated with the stakeholderswho would clearly be the most impacted or would have expertise to contribute to the effort (e.g., fishermen, government, tribal rep -resentatives, and trade unions). One-on-one meetings were the mosteffective. Phone calls or Skype weresecond resorts, but distance be-tween offices made those methodsmost practical in some cases. Teammembers tried to minimize use of e-mail, as the ability for intentions orinformation to be misinterpreted orpoorly understood is high.

MEET FREQUENTLY WITH LEGISLA-

TORS AND FEDERAL REPRESENTA-

TIVES. At the very beginning of theSAMP process, the team met forbackground briefing sessions withstate legislative leaders and theRhode Island Congressional dele -gation (and/or their top aides) to answer their questions and ensurethey understood the process, so thatwhen a constituent contacted them,they could respond accurately andappropriately. The Ocean SAMPteam repeated this process whensignificant new informationemerged. At each briefing session,team members asked policymakersto contact them if they heard something that contradicted the information the team had providedthem with. This helped legislators respond quickly to their constituentswith the correct information, whichbenefitted both the legislators andthe project’s ultimate success.

MAKE THE PUBLIC AWARE OF YOUR

SHARED EFFORTS. Team membersencouraged stakeholders to play anactive, visible role in the process, in-cluding asking stakeholders to writeopinion pieces or co-author themwith SAMP members for publicationin local news outlets.

CULTIVATE STRATEGIC PARTNERS.

The Ocean SAMP team worked to develop strategic partnerships withorganizations for mutual benefit. Forexample, the Ocean SAMP teamjoined with Rhode Island Natural History Survey (RINHS), a local organization active in environmentaleducation issues, to organize a publiclecture series on the environmentaleffects of offshore wind turbines, aswell as to hold a conference on thesame topic. The Ocean SAMP teamwas able to promote marine planningto a diverse audience on a topic thatmany people—especially RINHS

22


2297.P01_23_P 4/5/13 12:16 PM Page 22

members—were extremely passionateabout. The RINHS benefited in bring-ing a critical issue to its membershipwith financial and planning resourcesprovided by the Ocean SAMP.

DEVELOP DIVERSE COMMUNICATIONS.The Ocean SAMP team developed different mechanisms to com muni cateinformation: a web site, listserv, andpodcasts to summarize information, inaddition to traditional public relationsand printed outreach materials.

Annual public reports, monthlystakeholder meetings, and indi -vidual stakeholder meetings withfishermen and environmental

organi zations were also part of the communications strategy. The teampartnered with the public libraries to enable researchers to share theirinformation in public forums andprovide citizens a chance to askquestions. The team also joinedforces with Rogers Williams Uni -versity, Rhode Island Sea Grant, andthe RINHS to organize events onspecific legal, environmental, andecological aspects of the effort, and all benefitted by pooling their financial resources to make the most impact at least expense. Team leaders also met with themedia and state and federal gov ernment leaders to ensure they

were aware of the progress to date. Backgrounding briefings withmedia, politicians, and major localorgan izations not only worked tobuild trust, but also offered answersto questions those groups wouldlikely be asked. This helped to avoid confusion and address misrepresen-tations by opponents of the project.

TAKE CARE OF THE TEAM—THE MOST IMPORTANT STRATEGY OF ALLIn a project of this magnitude, inwhich a number of individuals withdifferent specialties worked on different aspects of the larger plan, it might have been easy for teammembers to feel that they wereworking alone. Project leaders workedto set aside time was for everyone toshare what he or she was hearing onthe street or learning from the newresearch. This was of particular help at times when frustrations mounted oran individual faced personal attackswhen reaching out in public situationson an issue as controversial as theplan could appear. Efforts made totake care of the team provedextremely important in ensuring that the team remained strong and healthy, and maximized theindividuals’ strengths and expertise.

While long hours were common,project leaders strove to make members of the team rest when theyneeded it. The team also regularlycelebrated successes—even if thatwas just recognition at a meeting orgoing out to lunch. These actionswere very important in building trustand camaraderie within the team.

23

2297.P01_23_P 4/5/13 12:56 PM Page 23

24

Ocean SAMP Implementation

2297.P24_31_P 4/5/13 12:22 PM Page 24

Implementing the Ocean SAMP involves several activities, from enhancing policies with the knowl-edge gleaned from new research, to testing marine spatial planningtools and techniques for improvedecosystem-based management, tosharing the SAMP lessons learnedwith other places. Going forward, aseven more data is collected and usedto support and refine state policies,the SAMP will increasingly provideguidance on offshore development instate waters. The table on page 26offers the current permitting stipula-tions for new development in theOcean SAMP area, requirements thatwill continue to be honed as more islearned about the potential impactsand benefits of development onocean resources and uses.

Encouraging appropriatedevelopment

The Ocean SAMP recognizes off-shore renewable energy as an optionto mitigate climate change, createjobs, and diversify Rhode Island’s energy base. It establishes a thor-ough and transparent offshore development permitting process oriented towards realizing the prom-ise of offshore renewable energywhile avoiding significant adverseimpacts on ecological and long-standing human uses of the area.

To assure that permitting decisionsare well-informed and complemen-tary to the regulatory requirementsof relevant agencies, the OceanSAMP establishes a Joint Agency

Working Group (JAWG) composedof all federal and state agencies witha regulatory responsibility towards aproposed project, as well as the Nar-ragansett Indian Tribe. The functionof this group is to work collabora-tively in determining project-specificrequirements to be followed duringconstruction, operations, and de-commissioning of a project, includ-ing those pertaining to monitoringand mitigation of adverse impactsthat the project may cause.

To foster sound permitting decisions,improve knowledge of the OceanSAMP area, and enable adaptivemanagement that responds to impacts of development as they aredetected, the Ocean SAMP requiresdevelopers to track ecological andhuman-use trends at a project sitebefore, during, and after construc-tion. Prior to the start of a project, adeveloper must submit two data-based documents: a pre-construc-tion Site Assessment Plan (SAP)detailing the studies that it intendsto perform for characterization ofthe project site, and a Constructionand Operations Plan (COP) outliningconstruction, operations, and de-commissioning plans for a proposedfacility. Pending approval of the SAPand COP, a developer must fund anindependent review of the design,fabrication, and installation of a pro-posed facility to certify that the proj-ect complies with sound engineeringpractices. Once a project is under-way, the JAWG determines a suite of monitoring requirements that adeveloper must follow.

Monitoring requirements for development

The Council, in coordination with theJAWG, shall determine requirementsfor monitoring prior to, during, andafter construction. Specific monitor-ing requirements shall be deter-mined on a project-by-project basisand may include but are not limitedto the monitoring of:

i. Coastal processes and physicaloceanography

ii. Underwater noiseiii. Benthic ecologyiv. Avian speciesv. Marine mammalsvi. Sea turtlesvii. Fish and fish habitatviii. Commercial and recreational

fishingix. Recreation and tourismx. Marine transportation, naviga-

tion, and existing infrastructurexi. Cultural and historic resources

RECREATIONAL BOATING: The Councilshall require, where appropriate, thatproject developers perform system-atic observations of recreationalboating intensity at the project areaat least three times: pre-construction,during construction, and post-construction. Observations may bemade while conducting other fieldwork or aerial surveys and may in-clude either visual surveys or analysisof aerial photography or video pho-tography. The Council shall require,where appropriate, that observationscapture both weekdays and week-ends and reflect high-activity periodsincluding the July 4th holiday 25

2297.P24_31_P 4/10/13 7:33 PM Page 25

IMPLEMENTING THE OCEAN SAMP

Summary of Permitting Requirements for New Development in the Ocean SAMP Area

Permitting Requirement Ecological Resources Cultural & Historical Resources

Fishing Resources Transportation Resources Recreational Resources

CRMC will deny or modifyproposed new uses withpotential for the following:

Adverse impacts on naturalresources, particularly fishspawning and nursery habitats

Adverse impacts on cultural,historical, and tribal resourcesin the Ocean SAMP area

Significant long-term (greaterthan two seasons) adverse impacts on fisheries stocksand practices

Significant impacts on marine transportation andnavigation

Significant impacts onmarine recreation andtourism or on the eco -logical services support-ing wildlife viewingopportunities

When making permittingdecisions, the CRMC willconsult with the following:

Habitat Advisory Board (six members appointed fromnon-profit and research communities)

Federal and state agenciesand the Narragansett Indian Tribe

Fishermen’s Advisory Board(nine members, from R.I. andMA) and other interested commercial and recreationalfishermen

The U.S. Coast Guard, theU.S. Navy, the U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers,NOAA, marine pilot organizations, and marinesafety organizations

Recreational boating organizations

Survey requirements(vary by project):

Physical, geological, and biological characteristics of aproposed development site;potential impacts of a projecton water quality, biological resources, threatened and endangered species, sensitivebiological habitats, and fisheries resources

Assessment of potential impacts to archaeological resources; visual impact assessment

Fish and fishery uses in a proposed project area; potential impacts on theseuses resulting from development

Risks posed by a projectto navigational uses in thevicinity

Recreational boating in-tensity at a project site

Monitoring requirements(vary by project):

Coastal processes, physicaloceanography, underwaternoise, benthic ecology, avianspecies, marine mammals, seaturtles, fish, and fish habitat

Status of adjacent culturaland historical resources

Changes in commercial andrecreational fishing practices,abundance of targetedspecies, and landings in the area

Changes in marine trans-portation, navigation, andexisting infrastructure inand around the project site

Recreational boating andother facets of recre-ational usage at the site

The following areas receive varying levels ofspecial protection:

Areas with unique or fragilephysical features, importanthabitats, and high natural productivity; waters measur-ing less than 20 meters(about 65 feet) in depth; Areas identified as criticalunder the EndangeredSpecies Act

Features of particular historical significance or cultural value

Areas of high fishing activity,including glacial moraines

Navigation, military, and infrastructure areas; Areaswhere development posesrisks to navigation in areasof high-intensity commer-cial marine traffic

Areas of substantial recreational value

Developers must construct project infrastructure in compliance with the following:

Use the best available tech-nology and techniques to mit-igate any adverse impacts tothreatened and endangeredspecies, marine mammals andcritical habitat

Halt activity and notify theCouncil if a potential archeo-logical resource is discovered

Configuration must minimizedisruption of fishing activities,for instance by including vessel traffic lanes

Configuration must minimize disruption ofnavigation, for instance byincluding vessel trafficlanes.

Configuration must minimize disruption ofrecreational boat traffic,for instance by includingmoorings and vessel traffic lanes

26

2297.P24_31_P 4/5/13 12:30 PM Page 26

RENEWABLE ENERGY ZONE. Based on the analysis of information including wind speeds, water depth, substrate types, existing uses, and protected areas, as well as considering the potential effects of offshore wind turbines on wildlife andexisting uses from renewable energy, the Ocean SAMP has a designated Renewable Energy Zone (REZ). Approximately2 kilometers (1.2 miles) wide and 34 square kilometers (13 square feet) long, this area extends from the east to the south-west of Block Island, just landward of the state water boundary. Developers that submit development proposals withinthe REZ within two years of Ocean SAMP approval may use data from the SAMP to complete their permitting process,expediting their permitting process.

Renewable Energy Zone Map

27

2297.P24_31_P 4/5/13 12:42 PM Page 27

weekend and the period in Junewhen Block Island Race Week takesplace. The quantitative results ofsuch observations, including rawboat counts and average number ofvessels per day, will be provided tothe Council.

COMMERCIAL AND RECREATIONAL

FISHING ACTIVITY: A biological assessment of commercially andrecreationally targeted fish speciesshall be required within the projectarea for all offshore developments.This assessment shall examine therelative abundance, distribution, anddifferent life stages of these speciesat all four seasons of the year. Thisassessment shall comprise a series ofsurveys, employing survey equipmentand methods that are appropriate forsampling finfish, shellfish, and crus-tacean species at the project’s pro-posed location. Such an assessmentshall be performed at least fourtimes: pre-construction (to assessbaseline conditions); during construc-tion; and at two different intervalsduring operation. At each time thisassessment must capture all four seasons of the year. This assessmentmay include evaluation of surveydata collected through an existingsurvey program, if data are availablefor the proposed site. The Council will not require this assessment forproposed projects within the REZthat are proposed within two years ofthe adoption of the Ocean SAMP.

An assessment of commercial andrecreational fisheries effort, landings,and landings value shall be requiredfor all proposed offshore develop-ments. Assessment shall focus on

the proposed project area and alternatives. This assessment shallevaluate commercial and recre-ational fishing effort, landings, andlandings value at three differentstages: preconstruction (to assessbaseline conditions); during con-struction; and during operation. Ateach stage, all four seasons of theyear must be evaluated. Assessmentmay use existing fisheries monitor-ing data but shall be supplementedby interviews with commercial andrecreational fishermen. Assessmentshall address whether fishing effort,landings, and landings value haschanged in comparison to baselineconditions. The Council will not re-quire this assessment for proposedprojects within the REZ that are proposed within two years of the adoption of the Ocean SAMP.

FACILITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE:

The Council in coordination with the JAWG may also require facilityand infrastructure monitoring requirements, that may include butare not limited to post-construction monitoring including regular visualinspection of inner array cables andthe primary export cable to ensureproper burial, foundation, and substructure inspection.

Coordination

FEDERAL AGENCIESBecause the Ocean SAMP area includes both state and federal waters, implementing the OceanSAMP to its full potential requiresseamless synchronization between

the CRMC and federal agencies. Theprimary federal agencies relevant tothe Ocean SAMP are BOEM and theU.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the permitting authority for energystructures in state waters.

The CRMC set an early precedent forcollaborating with these agencies byinvolving them in definition of theOcean SAMP’s scope and objectives,and maintained these relationshipsby periodically checking in withthese agencies to assure compati -bility of Ocean SAMP policies withfederal regulatory requirements. Asa result, the Ocean SAMP createsstate renewable energy permittingrequirements that dovetail withthose utilized by BOEM, producing astreamlined permitting process anddecision-making efficiency.

As noted previously, the OceanSAMP creates an ongoing role forfederal agencies in carrying out itspolicies by designating the JAWG,whose task is to establish case-by-case monitoring and mitigation requirements for proposed offshoredevelopment projects.

Since the Ocean SAMP area extendsas far as 27 miles beyond Rhode Island’s 3-mile state waters bound-ary, large parts of it are not directlymanageable under Ocean SAMPpolicies. The key to bringing theseparts into line with Ocean SAMP priorities is the federal consistencyprovision of the federal CZMA. Thisprovision gives states legal groundsto contest activities undertaken orpermitted by federal agencies infederal waters that (a) have reason-

28

IMPLEMENTING THE OCEAN SAMP

2297.P24_31_P 4/5/13 12:31 PM Page 28

ably foreseeable effects on humanuses or natural resources in statewaters, and (b) conflict with thestate’s coastal zone managementplan. Additionally, due to the impor-tance of the Ocean SAMP area tothe state of Rhode Island, the CRMCopted to go beyond federal consis-tency and secured a GeographicLocation Description (GLD) fromNOAA’s Office of Coastal ResourcesMan agement. As its name implies, aGLD is based on a description ofthe location for which it is soughtand an assessment of the types offederally permitted activities thatmight take place there and howfederally approved projects mayhave a foreseeable effect on thestate’s coastal resources and uses.Thanks to Ocean SAMP research,the CRMC was able to documenthow projects and activities permit-ted in federal waters could affectRhode Island’s coastal zone. A GLDhas one important advantage overthe traditional federal consistencyprovision: rather than placing theonus on the state to request federalconsistency review over proposedprojects in federal waters, it re-quires federal agencies to consultwith states on proposed projectsthey permit or approve to ensureconsistency with a state’s coastalzone management program. Thisassures that projects, whether instate or federal waters, adhere tothe same policies and standards.

NEIGHBORING STATESFederal waters lying directly southof the border of Rhode Island andMassachusetts possess some of thebest conditions for offshore wind

power in the Ocean SAMP area. Because this region lies equidistantfrom Rhode Island and Massachu-setts, both states have an interest indeveloping wind energy there.

On July 26, 2010, governors ofRhode Island and Massachusettssigned a memorandum of under-standing (MOU) concerning a 400-square-mile area in this region,which they labeled the Area of Mutual Interest (AMI). The MOU is apledge by both states to collaboratein the development of offshore windenergy projects in the AMI, and toshare equitably in the ensuing benefits. It prohibits each state fromdeveloping projects in the AMI with-out the support of its neighbor.

The MOU designates a crucial rolefor Ocean SAMP in this collabora-tion, by making it the governingplanning document for the entireAMI. Moreover, the MOU instructsthe CRMC to designate the Massa-chusetts Executive Office of Energyand Environmental Affairs as a formal stakeholder in the SAMPprocess, to be considered on equalfooting with other Ocean SAMPstakeholders in decisions concerningthe AMI. Massachusetts fishermenare also included on the OceanSAMP Fishermen’s Advisory Board.

Since the AMI is in federal waters, thedecision to permit development ofwind energy there ultimately falls toBOEM. To facilitate this process,Ocean SAMP policies highlight theAMI as an optimal location for off-shore wind energy development andmake Ocean SAMP data available to

BOEM for permitting evaluations.Ocean SAMP information is being incorporated into the BOEM Environ-mental Assessments for this area.Furthermore, due to the GLD and federal consistency, the policies of theOcean SAMP still apply to this area.

THE NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE The tribe’s proximity to the Rhode Island seacoast, longstanding connection to the Ocean SAMP area,and status as a federally recognizedtribe make it an essential collaboratorin Ocean SAMP implementation. Thetribe’s historic preservation officeplays a role in SAMP implementationthrough its position on the JAWG.Through this role, the tribe will evalu-ate proposed new uses of the SAMParea in light of cultural, historic, andother relevant concerns.

Putting the Ocean SAMPinto practice

Two years of research, interagencycoordination, and participatory pub-lic planning generated a comprehen-sive set of Ocean SAMP policies thatare fair, efficient, and grounded insound science. As the CRMC putsthese policies into practice, it willcontinue to rely on input from thescientists, state and federal agencies,and stakeholders that made thisachievement possible. These collab-orations ensure that the CRMC’s decisions pertaining to the OceanSAMP area reflect the broadest possible public interest and the bestavailable science.

29

2297.P24_31_P 4/5/13 12:42 PM Page 29

30

SCIENTISTS The CRMC will confer with state andfederal agencies, academic institu-tions, environmental organizations,and scientists when making decisions governing the selection offuture development sites and identi-fication of most valuable ecologicalareas within the Ocean SAMP area.Consultation with scientists will ensure that these decisions arebased on the best available scienceand modeling tools.

The Council will convene a panel ofscientists biannually to advise on

findings of current climate sciencefor the region and the implicationsfor Rhode Island’s coastal and off-shore regions, as well as the possiblemanagement ramifications. The horizon for evaluation and planning needs to include both the short term(10 years) and longer term (50 years).The Science Advisory Panel for Cli-mate Change will provide the Councilwith expertise on the most currentglobal climate change-related science,monitoring, policy, and developmentdesign standards relevant to activitieswithin its jurisdiction of the OceanSAMP and its associated land-based

infrastructure to proactively plan forand adapt to climate change impactssuch as increased storminess, temper-ature change, and acidification in addi-tion to accelerated sea level rise. Thefindings of this panel will be forwardedon to the legislatively appointedRhode Island Climate Change Commission for their consideration.

INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

The Ocean SAMP JAWG, comprisedof representatives of relevant stateand federal agencies as well as theNarragansett Indian Tribe, will createproject-specific construction and

IMPLEMENTING THE OCEAN SAMPAreas of Mutual Interest for Rhode Island and Massachusetts

2297.P24_31_P 4/5/13 12:32 PM Page 30

operation requirements that con-form to the regulatory requirementsof all agencies involved.

STAKEHOLDERSThe CRMC will work with resourceusers and advocacy organizations toachieve a balance of uses within theOcean SAMP area and to protect valu-able habitat as well as recreational,navigational, and fishing sites from impacts of future devel opment andclimate change. Regular stakeholderparticipation in implementation is pre-scribed through semi-annual meetingsof the Fishermen’s Advisory Boardand the Habitat Advisory Board. Onan as-needed basis, the CRMC willalso confer with public advocacy and citizens’ groups, recreational organiza-tions, marine pilots associations, andmarine safety organizations to assurecompatibility among current and fu-ture uses of the Ocean SAMP area.

A living document

The Ocean SAMP is more than a setof policies that respond to proposedprojects, it is also a dynamic struc-ture for continually studying, moni-toring, and planning for the OceanSAMP area in the face of changesand challenges that may arise in thefuture. The Ocean SAMP’s system-atic evaluation and revision frame-work assures that it adapts tochanging environmental conditionsand evolving public assessments ofthe Ocean SAMP area.

PROGRESS ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING PROCESS The CRMC will monitor progress towards Ocean SAMP goals, objec-

tives, and principles on an ongoingbasis. It will communicate results ofthese assessments continuallythrough the Ocean SAMP websiteand through formal biannual communications to the public.

OCEAN SAMP SCIENCE RESEARCH AGENDA In conjunction with federal, state,and local governments, scientists,environmental organizations, andusers of the Ocean SAMP area, theCRMC will oversee a permanent science research agenda designedto promote continual learning aboutthe Ocean SAMP area. This groupwill help the Council identify datagaps, research priorities, potentialpartners, and potential fundingsources for further research. Newlygathered information on the area’snatural resources, human activities,impacts due to climate change, andinteractions with offshore develop-ment will inform ongoing revisionsto Ocean SAMP policies.

OCEAN SAMP BIANNUAL PUBLIC FORUMEvery two years, the CRMC will convene a public forum featuringprogress updates on Ocean SAMPimplementation and new researchfindings, including updated projec-tions of the impacts of global climatechange on the area. The biannualforum will provide oppor tunities forexchange of information, ideas, andstrategies, and identify potential revisions to Ocean SAMP policies.

FIVE-YEAR REVIEWAlthough the Ocean SAMP may be amended at any time through

administrative process, the CRMCwill conduct a major review of thedocument every five years. In keep-ing with SAMP principles, the reviewprocess will rely heavily on participa-tion of stakeholders and on use ofthe best available science.

Conclusion

With Ocean SAMP adoptionachieved and implementation underway, the Ocean SAMP projectcontinues to enable Rhode Island tomove forward in understanding stateocean waters and the tools withwhich marine resources can be managed and enhanced for decadesto come. The state’s effort to makefull use of its federal consistency authority and secure a GLD not onlyallowed the Ocean SAMP to applyacross federal and state waters, but will also streamline dialogueconcerning development applica-tions in the Ocean SAMP study area.Learning continues to take placewith research projects on the ani-mals, habitats, geology, and humanuses significant to the area. Otherstates are studying the example ofthe Rhode Island Ocean SAMP, andin turn, the experiences of otherplaces are helping Rhode Island toenhance its approach to ecosystem-based management. The OceanSAMP has demonstrated the stronglinks that people and communitiesshare with their ocean waters. It’snot a final answer, but a start—astart to ensuring that Rhode Islandmanages its ocean waters not onlyto protect its riches of natural resources, but to promise them tofuture generations to come.

31

2297.P24_31_P 4/5/13 12:32 PM Page 31

32

Ocean SAMP Resources and Research

2297.P32_51_P 4/5/13 1:08 PM Page 32

The Ecosystem The Rhode Island Ocean SAMP areacomprises portions of Rhode IslandSound and Block Island Sound aswell as a section of the AtlanticOcean out to the continental shelfslope. It is an ecologically uniquetransition zone characterized by themixing of deep offshore waters withthe shallower, more productive estuarine waters of NarragansettBay and Long Island Sound.

Abundant marine life

The Ocean SAMP area is a bio -logically productive area, with anabundance of finfish, shellfish andcrustacean species, marine mam-mals, sea turtles, and birds. Block Island Sound and Rhode IslandSound are characterized by a seasonal flux of offshore organisms:every summer, there is an influx ofplankton from offshore. Animals including commercially and rec -reationally important finfish andcrustacean species as well as whalesand other marine mammals, followthis source of food inshore. This seasonal influx of plankton also includes larvae of commercially important species such as lobsterand menhaden, which spawn off-shore but grow to adulthood furtherinshore. Birds are also a key part ofthe Ocean SAMP area ecosystem.Passerines regularly migratethrough, with Block Island being animportant stopover point in this migratory path, and waterbirds are

abundant in the Ocean SAMP areaduring the winter months.

Supportive habitats

Much of this marine life relies on therich benthic habitats found in theOcean SAMP area. For example, glacial moraines are important habitat areas for a diversity of fishand other organisms because of theirrelative permanence and structuralcomplexity. Glacial moraines createenvironments that exhibit some ofthe highest biodiversity within theOcean SAMP area. Most of the glacialmoraines mapped through theOcean SAMP research effort are located in federal waters. The glacialmoraines and other unique featurescreate and define the value of thearea for fisheries, tourism, recreation,and other human uses, as well as itsecological value to the eastern NorthAtlantic ecosystem. The OceanSAMP is helping define the distinctlinkages between the resources inthis offshore area and the coastaluses and resources of Rhode Island’scoastal zone.

Protecting ecosystems

The Ocean SAMP formally recog nizes the importance of preserving and restoring the area’secosystem, particularly in light of the vast uncertainties imposed by climate change. Its policies strive to maintain a delicate ecological balance in the area through com -prehensive and forward-looking

Ecological Impacts of Climate Change

Ten thousand years ago, rapid sea level rise transformed the terrestrialecosystem that then dominated the Ocean SAMP area into the marineecosystem that occupies it now. Science indicates that the area is againundergoing rapid climatic change, this time associated with risinggreenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Global trends towards warming waters, ocean acidification, rising sea levels, and increasing storms are expected to have significant yet hard-to-predict implications for the area.

SHIFTING SPECIES RANGES As Ocean SAMP area waters warm, cold-water species like cod and lobster are expected to retreat northward,with warm-water species taking their place. Such a shift could havemajor implications for fisheries.

SHIFTING MIGRATION SCHEDULES Temperature-induced modificationsin the timing and intensity of annual migrations may throw predator-prey cycles off kilter. For instance, early arrival of a comb jelly speciesis thought to have an adverse effect on crab and lobster larvae, with potential consequences for local fisheries.

HABITAT LOSS Physical elimination or alteration of ocean and coastalhabitat may negatively affect certain species. For instance, pipingplovers and least terns, which are both threatened species, may losecritical beach nesting habitat due to sea level rise.

ACIDIFICATION As ocean waters absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide,they become more acidic. Acidity impairs the shell-building ability oflobsters, clams, and plankton, interferes with the oxygen intake mecha-nisms of squid and fish, and disrupts the olfactory cues used by larvalfish to locate suitable habitat.

DISEASE Warming waters are expected to facilitate the spread of marinediseases. Increased temperatures have already been implicated in the increased incidence of shell disease among lobsters in the Ocean SAMParea, further threatening an already vulnerable fisheries resource.

INVASIVE SPECIES Warming waters are expected to decrease the re-silience of native sp ecies while expanding hospitable ranges for invasivespecies that disrupt or prey upon local marine life. No data yet exist onthis compounding effect in the Ocean SAMP area.

33

2297.P32_51_P 4/5/13 1:08 PM Page 33

34

OCEAN SAMP RESOURCES & RESEARCH

New Insights Gained about Seaduck Feeding Behavior

Through the Ocean SAMP, URI avian researchers have been able to take a closerlook at how a wide variety of birds, in cludingwintering sea ducks, make use of Rhode Island’s nearshore and offshore waters. URIprofessor and avian expert Peter Paton ex-plains that until recently, the body of researchon sea duck habitat use has maintained thatmost species typically only utilize and foragein waters with maximum depths of 20 meters,or nearly 66 feet, to feed on the sea floor fortheir staple foods of clams, mussels, snails, and marine worms. Paton’s recent low-altitude aerial bird surveys over the Ocean SAMPstudy area have documented black scoters, a common wintering sea duck

species on the East Coast, in waters up to 40meters (nearly 130 feet) deep, where winter-ing sea ducks are not typically found. Blackscoters have been found to be particularly sensitive to offshore wind development. At thispoint it is unclear if the birds are foraging inthese deeper waters, says Paton, but the sight-ings are important, because they suggest thatthese birds, and perhaps other species, may beaccessing their habitats more extensively thanpreviously understood. Thanks to the ongoing

nature of the SAMP, the opportunityexists for re searchers like Paton

to continue to update the planas new findings emerge.

2297.P32_51_P 4/5/13 1:38 PM Page 34

decision-making structures that drawon the expertise of both scientistsand resources users. These include:

• A Habitat Advisory Board (HAB)composed of nine members drawnfrom the research and non-profitcommunities and charged with advising the CRMC on potentialimpacts of new uses and prioritiza-tion of future ecological research;

• A science research agenda—devel-oped by scientists, partner federaland state agencies, environmentalorganizations, and users of theOcean SAMP area—to help theCRMC identify data gaps, researchpriorities, potential partners, andavailable funding sources relevant

to understanding the area’s changing natural resources; and

• A panel of climate scientists thatwill update the CRMC biannuallyon newly detected climate changeimpacts and options for adaptationin the Ocean SAMP area.

The Ocean SAMP makes ecologicalprotection a major consideration inthe permitting of new uses of theOcean SAMP area. To assure thatnew uses do not create adverse impacts on the area’s ecosystem, theOcean SAMP holds that prospectivedevelopers must avoid significantadverse ecological impacts, in particular those affecting fishspawning and nursery habitats.

Where impacts are unavoidable, developers are responsible for minimizing and mitigating them. Extensive research and mappingwork allowed the Ocean SAMP toapply several levels of protection forecologically sensitive areas:

• Areas with unique or fragile physical features, important habi-tats, and high natural productivityare listed as Areas of ParticularConcern (APCs). Developers mustavoid them, and, where avoidanceis not possible, must minimize andmitigate impacts to the resourcesthey contain.

• Waters measuring less than 20meters (about 65 feet) in depthare listed as Areas Designated forProtection (ADPs) due to theirfunction as sea duck foraginghabitat. Large-scale offshore developments (e.g., offshore windfarms consisting of more than fiveturbines, wave or tidal energy generation devices, offshore liqui-fied natural gas (LNG) platforms,and artificial reefs) are prohibitedin these areas.

• Areas identified as critical underthe Endangered Species Act are offlimits to all offshore development.

Moraines act as a magnet for commercially and recreationally im-portant species of fish and lobster.The Ocean SAMP protects morainesby classifying them as Areas of Particular Concern (APC).

35

Ocean SAMP Habitats MORAINES Moraines are mounds of glacially deposited geological debris that crisscross the floor of the Ocean SAMP area. Their elevation and intricacy makesthem some of the richest habitat in the Ocean SAMP area. As a result, numerous organisms depend on them for food and shelter. Moraines act as a magnet forcommercially and recreationally important species of fish and lobster. The OceanSAMP protects moraines by classifying them as Areas of Particular Concern(APC).

FISH HABITAT Many fish species depend on habitat found within the OceanSAMP area during some stage in their life cycles. Ocean SAMP policies highlight the importance of spawning and nursery areas, since these habitatsprovide a vital link during the most vulnerable stages of fish life cycles. Mapping currently underway will provide a more complete picture of key fishhabitats in the Ocean SAMP area.

SEA DUCK FORAGING HABITAT Sea ducks, which include eiders and scoters,feed by diving for worms and other invertebrates on the seafloor. To protectvital duck foraging habitat, the Ocean SAMP classifies all waters with depthsless than or equal to 65.6 feet (20 meters) as Areas Designated for Preserva-tion (ADP).

“The SAMP is an exhaustiveresource inventory for a lot of data that was outthere. That lets us knowwhat needs to be protected,and where there are oppor tunities for new devel op ment withoutforcing major environ -mental or other tradeoffs.”

JOHN TORGAN, FORMERLY BAYKEEPER FOR SAVE THE BAY, AND MEMBEROF THE OCEAN SAMPSTAKEHOLDER GROUP

2297.P32_51_P 4/5/13 1:09 PM Page 35

Cultural andHistorical Resources Human life has been intertwinedwith the Ocean SAMP area for atleast 7,500 years. Humans may haveeven lived in the area during the iceage, when sea levels were muchlower than they are today. Archaeo-logical surveys and historical re-search conducted for the OceanSAMP highlight the rich and still-evolving heritage of the area.

FOOD The Ocean SAMP area hasnourished humans ever since the

Narragansett and Wampanoag Indian Tribes first feasted from itsshores. With the advent of com -mercial harvesting methods in the1600s, fishing became a source notonly of food but of profit. The abundance of fish resources was amotivating factor in the migration oftens of thousands of Europeans toNew England.

ENERGY Beginning with the harvestof firewood and peat on Block Islandduring colonial days, the OceanSAMP area has played a critical rolein powering Rhode Island. Since thedawn of the fossil fuel age, the areahas been a key passageway for hun-

dreds of thousands of vessels carry-ing coal and petroleum to Rhode Island ports. The grounding of theNorth Cape oil barge in 1996 wasbut the latest in a centuries-longstring of energy-related transpor -tation accidents; most of the shipslying in the depths of the OceanSAMP area sank while transportingcoal during a busy industrializationperiod between 1870 and 1920. Off-shore renewable energy represents anew chapter in the evolving role ofthe Ocean SAMP area in providingfor Rhode Island’s energy needs.

LEISURE Rhode Island’s shores havebeen a choice vacation destination

36


“A largely forgotten chapter”:The Ocean SAMP Area and the 19th-Century Coal TradeWhile the SAMP lays out policies and practices formanaging a wide spectrum of coastal and ocean re-sources and uses, the question of how Rhode Islandwill approach the issue of developing its offshore re-newable energy resources, mainly windpower, hasemerged as a subject of SAMP dialogue. But this is farfrom the first time that Rhode Island’s ocean watershave served as the backdrop against which local, re-gional, and national energy issues have played out fortwo centuries. Consider the 19th-century coal trade,says URI underwater archeologist Rod Mather, whoseresearch is captured in the Cultural and Historical Re-sources chapter of the SAMP: “The Ocean SAMP area’senergy landscape is very important in the history ofRhode Island and greater New England. The coal ves-sels provided critical infrastructure without which theregion would have languished economically after the

Civil War. It has been a largely forgotten chapter in thestate’s maritime or industrial history. Where merchantvessels such as the famous Brown family East IndiamanAnn and Hope that wrecked at Block Island in 1815were highly visible in cultural terms and associatedwith the wealth and social status of their owners, thecoal vessels, with a few notable exceptions, rarely con-tributed to the social status to their owners, officers, orcrew. Indeed other merchant mariners regarded thegrimy armada of coaling vessels and their crews withmixture contempt and pity due to the low wages, harshliving conditions, mixed racial composition of the work-force, and the frequent accidents they endured (TheSeaman’s Bill, Hearings Held Before the Committee onMerchant Marine and Fisheries on House Bill 11372,December 14, 1911).”

2297.P32_51_P 4/5/13 1:09 PM Page 36

since the late 19th century. New-port’s extravagant seaside cottageshail from the Gilded Age of the late19th century, while the state’s nu-merous beaches have drawn RhodeIsland’s urban residents for morethan 100 years. Rhode Island hashosted international America’s Cupyachting races, and seaside vistasand maritime pastimes continue tospur major economic and culturalactivities within and around theOcean SAMP area.

DEFENSE The Ocean SAMP area hasplayed a role in at least 20 militaryconflicts since colonial times. Thearea has been the site of skirmishes,transit of vessels, training and test-ing, and development of weapons.Military presence peaked duringWorld War II, with the establishmentof several naval stations alongRhode Island’s coast. Vestiges re-main, in the form of unexploded ordnance and ship and plane wreckslittering the seafloor. The most notable is the wreck of the GermanU-boat 853, sunk off of Block Islandonly days before Germany’s WorldWar II surrender.

NARRAGANSETT INDIAN TRIBE ORALHISTORY The Narragansett IndianTribe is the oldest known culture inRhode Island. Archaeological evi-dence and oral history suggest thatthe tribe has lived in the area forover 30,000 years. Thanks to workby Dr. Ella W. T. Sekatau, the tribe’sofficial historian, the Ocean SAMPcontains the first-ever recorded version of the tribe’s oral history,covering events from its first knownorigins until the present time.

Protecting cultural andhistorical resources

The Ocean SAMP formally recog-nizes the area’s cultural and histori-cal significance for Rhode Island,and calls upon the CRMC to engagestate, federal, and tribal entitieswhen evaluating potential impacts of new uses on these resources.

Features of particular cultural or historical value, such as shipwrecksand underwater archaeological sites,receive special protection. TheOcean SAMP designates these sitesas APCs; prospective developersmust avoid APCs, and, where avoid-ance is not possible, must minimizeand mitigate impacts to the resources they contain.

37

Potential Historic Shipwreck Locations

SHIPWRECKS The Ocean SAMP area’s history remains in evidence on its seafloor,in the form of sunken ships. At least 600 ships—schooners, steamers, fishingboats, submarines, tugs, and barges—are estimated to have sunk within theOcean SAMP area. Fifty of these lie at known locations, and are listed as APCs.

2297.P32_51_P 4/10/13 7:34 PM Page 37

Commercial andRecreationalFishing Fishing is one of the oldest and themost significant human uses in theOcean SAMP area in both economicand cultural terms. Catching fish—forprofit, sport, or food—occurs in al-most every segment of the OceanSAMP area at some point during theyear. Fishermen collaborated withSAMP researchers to generate an account of where they fish, whenthey fish, and what gear they use.This data will help shield fisheriesfrom impacts associated with off-shore development.

COMMERCIAL FISHING Commercialfishing in the Ocean SAMP area occurs year-round and encompasses

an array of gear types and species.Fishing includes bottom trawling forflatfish, cod, and squid; mid-watertrawling for herring and mackerel;dredging for scallops; rod-and-reelfishing for striped bass, fluke, andtuna; gillnetting for skate, fluke, andmonkfish; and trap fishing for lobster, sea bass, and scup.

According to fishermen who helpedcraft the Ocean SAMP, fishing pat-terns are highly seasonal, due to theinflux of warm-water migrants insummer and cold-water migrants inwinter. Fishermen follow the fish,often concentrating on transitionalhabitats where fish converge duringtheir migrations. A prime fishing areais Cox’s Ledge, which is used bymany different commercial geartypes as well as recreational anglers.

RECREATIONAL AND FOR-HIRE

FISHING Recreational fishing is a

popular pastime for Rhode Islandersand a major attraction for out-of-state tourists. In 2007, 182,000 anglers fished Rhode Island waters,making total of 1.2 million trips. Thebulk of recreational fishing takesplace in the summer, during the migrations of top recreational fishlike tuna, scup, bluefish, and stripedbass. The Rhode Island SaltwaterAnglers Association sponsors 15tournaments per year, as well as a“yearlong” tournament targeting 15species; all of the tournaments involve species found in the OceanSAMP area.

Recreational fishermen may try theirluck from shore, from private boats,or from one of the approximately150 charter and party boats licensedin Rhode Island. The waters surrounding Block Island are a particularly popular spot for recreational fishing.

Promoting and enhancingfishing

The Ocean SAMP formally recognizesthe paramount economic, cultural,and social value to Rhode Island ofthe commercial and recreational fisheries taking place throughout theOcean SAMP area. It calls for a two-fold approach that simultaneouslysafeguards fisheries from adverse impacts associated with new development while improving thesustainability of fishing practices.

The Ocean SAMP creates a role for commercial and recreational38


Estimated Added Income in Rhode Island from Fishing

$75.2 million generated by commercial fishing (National Oceanic andAtmos pheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service[NOAA/NMFS]. 2008)

$69 million generated by seafood processors and wholesalers(NOAA/NMFS. 2008)

$52 million generated by recreational fishing (U.S. Department of Commerce. 2008)

2297.P32_51_P 4/5/13 1:10 PM Page 38

39

Commercial and Recreational Fishing Areas

AREAS OF HIGH FISHING ACTIVITY Although the entire Ocean SAMP area is used for fishing, some areas are especiallyfertile. These often lie along the edges of distinct habitats, where mud meets sand, sand meets gravel, gravel meetsboulders, or boulders meet ledge. The FAB will identify areas of high fishing activity in or around proposed develop-ments. These areas will be treated as APCs.

“This area includessome of the best fishinglocations in the R.I. area.Any development must be done in such amanner that recreationalfishing interests areconsidered.”

RICH HITTINGER, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, R.I. SALTWATER ANGLERSASSOCIATION

2297.P32_51_P 4/10/13 7:34 PM Page 39

40

fishermen in shaping implementationof its fisheries-related policiesthrough a nine-member Fishermen’sAdvisory Board (FAB). Composed ofsix Rhode Island fishermen and threeMassachusetts fishermen, the FAB istasked with advising the CRMC onproper siting of new developmentsand mitigation of any ensuing im-pacts. Mitigation requirements will beestablished by the CRMC on a case-by-case basis, and may include finan-cial compensation, effort reduction,habitat preservation and restoration,or infrastructure improvements.

Moreover, the Ocean SAMP creates apathway for all fishermen to accessdevelopers, by requiring each developer to appoint and fund athird-party fisheries liaison for theduration of a project.

The Ocean SAMP designates areasof high fishing activity, including glacial moraines, as APCs. TheCRMC may, through consultationwith the FAB, specify additionalprime fishing areas as APCs. TheOcean SAMP requires prospectivedevelopers to avoid APCs, and,where avoidance is not possible, tominimize and mitigate impacts tothe resources they contain.


“Every square inch of theOcean SAMP is being used at some time during the year.We must use the SAMP toensure that the Rhode Islandfishing and coastal com -munities that the industrysupports do not becomecollateral damage in the effortto develop renewable energy. ”

LANNY DELLINGER, PRESIDENT, R.I. LOBSTERMEN’S ASSOCIATION

2297.P32_51_P 4/5/13 1:11 PM Page 40

Transportation andNavigationResources Located at the center of a constella-tion of ports and the shipping lanes,the Ocean SAMP area is a busy mar-itime thoroughfare. By catalogingmaritime activities and navigationpatterns, the Ocean SAMP offers adeeper understanding of these usesand protects them from the impactsof development and climate change.Knowledge contributed by the U.S.Coast Guard (USCG), NOAA, theNortheast Marine Pilots, R.I. Depart-ment of Environmental Management(RIDEM), and local port and vesseloperators was key to this effort.

SHIPPING Freight vessels enter Nar-ragansett Bay daily through theOcean SAMP area, most bound forProvidence and Fall River with car-gos of petroleum and coal. In addi-tion, many other ships traverse theOcean SAMP area en route betweenNew York, Boston, and points northand south. Four official pilot board-ing areas at the entrance of Narra-gansett Bay indicate places wherecommercial ships pick up pilots toguide them through state waters.

TRANSPORTATION Passenger ferry ser -vice connects Block Island to points inRhode Island, Connecticut, Massachu-setts, and New York. In 2006, ferriestraveling through the Ocean SAMParea conveyed over 700,000 passen-gers to their destinations.

NAVY USE The Navy controls two re-stricted zones in the Ocean SAMParea, one for torpedo testing and an-other for mine-laying exercises. Inaddition, U.S. Naval Undersea War-fare Center (NUWC) tests equip-ment such as unmanned vehicles inthe area. Roughly seven naval ves-sels pass through the Ocean SAMParea en route to Newport each year,and New London-based submarinescross its southwest corner to reachoffshore transit lanes.

Promoting and enhancingtransportation and navigation

The Ocean SAMP formally recog-nizes the economic, historic, and cul-tural value to Rhode Island oftransportation and navigation in theOcean SAMP area. It ensures that

consideration of these uses is a priority when permitting proposednew uses of the area, and creates arole for federal agencies and marinepilots organizations when evaluatingthese proposals.

Extensive mapping of navigationand transportation activitiesthroughout the Ocean SAMP areapinpointed sites that are indis -pensable to shipping and militaryareas. The Ocean SAMP lists these as APCs. Prospective developersmust avoid these areas, and whereavoidance is not possible, they mustminimize and mitigate impacts there. In addition, the Ocean SAMP prohibits large-scale offshore devel-opment in areas of high-intensitycommercial marine traffic if it posesrisks to navigation in area.

41

Employment Value of Transportation andNavigation to Rhode Island

2,053 jobs at the Ports of Providence and Davisville (FXM Associates, 2008)

2,602 jobs at Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC DivisionNewport, 2009)

“My agency, the CoastGuard, is committed toensuring a balanced, safeuse of our waterways by allthose with an interest inour ocean resources. TheOcean SAMP processprovided us with anopportunity to participatewith other local, state, andfederal stakeholders in atruly comprehensivereview of the current andpotential future uses ofRhode Island’s coastalwaters.”

— EDWARD LEBLANC, USCG

2297.P32_51_P 4/5/13 1:11 PM Page 41

42


As a living document, the SAMP alwaysconsiders the past, addresses presentneeds, and looks ahead to possible fu-ture uses. One potential transportationuse being raised is short sea shipping, asdescribed in the Marine Transportation,Navigation & Infrastructure chapter ofthe Ocean SAMP: “Commercial traffic inthe Ocean SAMP area may increase inthe future if a short sea shipping indus-try develops in Rhode Island. Short seashipping is the movement of goods (usually containerized) domesticallyaboard barges, with the goal of reducingtruck traffic on congested highways. Thecorridor between Boston, New York, andWashington, D.C., has been proposed asan attractive region in which to developshort sea shipping routes due to theamount of traffic congestion, the region’s population density, and theavailability of port facilities (R.I. Eco-nomic Monitoring Collaborative 2007).No short sea shipping routes are cur-rently in use in the area, but somesources indicate that if this use were todevelop, Rhode Island ports, particularlyProvidence, could serve as a central hub(R.I. Economic Monitoring Collaborative2007; National Ports and Waterways In-stitute, University of New Orleans 2004).If short sea shipping were to develop inRhode Island, it would greatly increasethe number and frequency of vesseltransits through the Ocean SAMP area.”

Eyeing the Potential forShort Sea Shipping

Navigation, Military, and Infrastructure Areas Designated as Areas of Particular Concern

NAVIGATION, MILITARY, AND INFRASTRUCTURE AREAS The Ocean SAMP area is crisscrossed by shipping lanes, ferryroutes, dredge disposal sites, military testing areas, unexploded ordnance, pilot boarding areas, anchorages,and submarine transit lanes. Because all of these represent vital uses that cannot be displaced or altered with-out provoking danger or economic disruption, the Ocean SAMP lists them as APCs.

2297.P32_51_P 4/10/13 7:35 PM Page 42

Recreation andTourism Resources The Ocean SAMP area’s winds, wa-ters, and wildlife make it a primedestination for adventure and relax-ation, particularly during summermonths. These amenities not onlyenrich life for Rhode Islanders, butalso act as a major draw for tourists.As Rhode Island’s fourth largest in-dustry, tourism accounts for $6.8 bil-lion of spending in the state andgenerates 12 percent of tax rev-enues. Based on input from boaters,tour operators, and other stakehold-ers, the Ocean SAMP describesrecreational usage patterns in thearea and offers policies to protectthese uses from potential impacts offuture development.

BOATING Ocean SAMP researchhighlights the popularity of the areafor sport fishing, sailing, and long-

distance cruising between ports. Ofparticular economic importance arethe seven inshore and 16 long-dis-tance sailing races that are held on aregular basis in the area and sustainRhode Island’s century-old reputa-tion a world-class sailing center.

DIVING Scuba divers are drawn tothe shipwrecks and marine life foundin the Ocean SAMP area, particularlyduring warmer months. Ocean SAMPresearch found that approximately10 licensed dive boats operate in thearea, in addition to an unidentifiednumber of private boats.

WILDLIFE WATCHING The opportunityto glimpse whales, birds, and sharksis a small but highly valued use ofthe Ocean SAMP area. Conversa-tions with tour guides uncovered ge-ographic and seasonal patterns inwildlife viewing, noting that whalewatching is best in July and August;bird watching occurs throughout theyear, in locations determined by

migration patterns; and shark view-ing, which takes place within floatingor submersible cages, occurs over alarge geographical range duringsummer months.

BEACHES From the shore, the OceanSAMP area provides spectacularviews and cultivates a maritimecharacter valued by locals andtourists alike. Portions of coastalRhode Island adjacent to the OceanSAMP area are heavily dependent onthese primarily seasonal amenitiesfor income associated with recre-ation and tourism.

Promoting and enhancingrecreation and tourism

The Ocean SAMP recognizes thatmarine recreation and tourism arenot only vital to Rhode Island’seconomy but are also instrumentalin shaping the state’s culture andidentity. These uses are a prime consideration when permitting proposed new uses in the OceanSAMP area, and recreational boatingorganizations have a role in evaluat-ing these proposals.

Extensive mapping of recreationalactivities throughout the OceanSAMP area located sites of substan-tial recreational value, such as sail-boat racing grounds and offshoredive locations. The Ocean SAMP liststhese as APCs. Prospective develop-ers must avoid these areas, andwhere avoidance is not possible,must minimize and mitigate impactsto the resources these areas contain.

Value of Boating in Rhode Island

2,071 people employed in the boating industry (Thunberg, 2008)

43,000 boats registered in Rhode Island (Ninigret Partners, 2006)

43

2297.P32_51_P 4/5/13 1:13 PM Page 43

44


Offshore Dive Sites Designated as Areas of Particular ConcernDIVE SITES Offshore recreational divers prize the adventure and historic value of the Ocean SAMP area’s shipwrecks. Dueto the irreplaceable and highly valuable nature of these dive sites for recreation and tourism, the Ocean SAMP lists themas APCs.

2297.P32_51_P 4/10/13 7:35 PM Page 44

45

Sailboat Racing in the Ocean SAMP AreaSAILBOAT RACING AREAS Sailboat races are a valued cultural and recreational tradition in the Ocean SAMP area, and rep -resent a significant boon to Rhode Island’s economy. The waters south of Brenton Point are a hub for buoy racing, andmany long-distance races also start or end in these waters; from 1930 to 1983, this was the site of the internationallyrenowned America’s Cup race. Block Island is a popular destination or waypoint for many races, including Block IslandRace Week. Because of the importance of these two areas in sailboat racing, the Ocean SAMP lists them as APCs.

2297.P32_51_P 4/10/13 7:35 PM Page 45

46


A Long and Valued History as an Ideal Sailing and Boating Locale

The Ocean SAMP Recreation and Tourism chapter offersrich detail about the tradition of boating—from race sailing to pleasure cruising—in Rhode Island’s ocean waters and harbors. Heralded events such as the Amer-ica’s Cup and the Newport-Bermuda Race have earnedRhode Island global recognition as a yachting capital,while waters closer to shore provided relaxation andrespite to those lucky enough to own a vessel: “In addition to seaside tourism, Block Island has historicallybeen a popular destination for recreational boaters andsailors. A 1948 cruising guide, Yachting in North

America, identifies Block Island as a recommended destination and directs boats to anchor in the Great SaltPond, rather than Old Harbor on the east side of the is-land. It identifies Block Island as “a place where you’llmeet every cruising yacht and yachtsman between CapeCod and New York. It’s the goal of many a small boat’scruise from both the western end of Long Island Soundand the ports to the eastward, the place where biggeryachts almost always stop in when bound either east orwest, and the scene of many a yacht club rendezvous andcruising-race finish” (Connett 1948).

2297.P32_51_P 4/10/13 7:36 PM Page 46

Climate Change Records show that over the last hundred years, New England has experienced increases in air andocean surface temperatures, sealevel, wetness and storminess, andacidity of sea water, with a con -comitant decrease of wind speeds.In anticipation of these changes, theOcean SAMP process convened scientists and resource users tospeculate on possible implicationsfor human uses of the Ocean SAMParea. This forethought forms thebasis of flexible policy mechanismscapable of adapting to the impactsof climate change as they becomebetter understood.

Rising temperatures

Ostensibly, increases in air andwater temperatures may benefitrecreation and transportation in theOcean SAMP area by lengtheningshipping and boating seasons andreducing winter icing of vessels andwaterways. At the same time, how-ever, warmer water temperaturesmay harm recreation and tourism inthe area by increasing populationsof jellyfish and harmful algae and byshortening the viewing season forseals and winter migratory birds.

Human activities in the OceanSAMP may also endure impactsfrom the reshuffling of species thatis expected to occur as a result ofwarming waters. Species at thesouthern end of their range in the

Ocean SAMP area are likely to either decrease within the area, be-come available for a shorter amountof time, or shift their presence tothe area’s deeper waters. Severalcommercially important species, including American lobster, Atlanticcod, silver hake, and winter floun-der, belong in this group. In con-trast, species at the northern end oftheir range in the Ocean SAMP areaare likely to become available inlarger quantities or for longer periods of time. These include Atlantic croaker, black sea bass,blue crab, butterfish, scup, andsummer flounder. These changesmay exert pressure on fishermen totravel further in pursuit of fish, tar-get different species, and employdifferent fishing methods.

Increasing precipitation andstorm intensity

Projected increases in overall wetness, storm frequency, and stormintensity may pose negative con -sequences for boat travel in theOcean SAMP area. Greater and morefrequent storms may damage infra-structure and vessels, diminish visi-bility at sea, increase erosion aroundcoastal infrastructure, disrupt cargoloading and unloading procedures,interfere with ferry schedules, andmake fishing and recreational boat-ing more dangerous. Storms mayalso shorten the boating season,counteracting the positive effect ofwarmer weather on recreation andtourism in the Ocean SAMP area. Indirectly, greater precipitation may

increase runoff from land, leading tohigher rates of water pollution, nutri-ent enrichment, and sedimentationof waterways.

Sea level rise

Rising sea level poses a variety ofcomplications for marine activities.Sea level rise may improve navigabil-ity of waterways by increasing waterdepth, but it may also reduce vesselpassing heights under bridges, in-crease the vulnerability of coastal infrastructure, and eliminate or alterthe barrier beaches, salt marshes,and other habitats that make RhodeIsland’s shoreline appealing forrecreation.

Diminishing wind speeds

Projected weakening of wind speedsmay make the Ocean SAMP area less attractive for sailing, putting a damper on the area’s popular sailboat races. In addition, changesin wind patterns may alter oceancurrents, requiring modifications ofvessel routes.

Ocean acidification

By causing faster rates of corrosion,ocean acidification is expected to increase the vulnerability of infra-structure and vessels and speed therate of decay of the area’s culturallyand recreationally important ship-wrecks. Moreover, acidification mayhave devastating effects on marine 47

2297.P32_51_P 4/5/13 1:15 PM Page 47

invertebrates, undermining the marine food web that sustains both commercial and recreationalfisheries.

Economic and legal aspects

Climate change may indirectly affecthuman activities in the Ocean SAMParea by altering economic and legalaspects pertinent to the area’s use.Warming temperatures are expectedto shift energy demand from coolerto warmer months, altering the traf-fic patterns of vessels supplying fuelto the region. Insurance companiesmay raise premiums on shipping andcoastal infrastructure, affecting pric-ing and profitability of port andshipping activities. Sea level rise ef-fectively shifts the line betweenstate property and private or localproperty landward, which may resultin legal complications with repercus-sions for the Ocean SAMP area.Combined with storm hazards andrising temperatures, sea level risemay decrease coastal property val-ues and reduce income fromtourism. Complex effects like theseillustrate the wide-ranging signifi-cance of climate change for RhodeIsland and the Ocean SAMP area.

Adapting to climate change

The Ocean SAMP integrates antici-pated impacts from climate changeinto every aspect of its planningprocess. Its policies simultaneouslypromote energy conservation andrenewable energy to mitigate the

greenhouse gas pollution thatcauses climate change, while estab-lishing adaptive policies to plan forand respond to impacts that are unavoidable.

Through the Ocean SAMP, theCRMC commits itself to evaluatingthe feasibility, safety, and effective-ness of proposed Ocean SAMP areauses under projected conditions in aclimate changed world; barringprojects that would threaten publicsafety or not perform as intendedunder such conditions; supportingenhanced building standards forcoastal infrastructure such as ports,docks, and bridges; and encourag-ing public education about climatechange and its impacts on the area.The Ocean SAMP calls for periodicupdates on the information under-pinning these and future measuresthrough formal engagement withscientists in relevant fields.

Prospective NewUses of the OceanSAMP Area

While recognizing the contributionthat the Ocean SAMP area makes toRhode Island’s economy and culture,the Ocean SAMP recognizes that po-tential new uses of the Ocean SAMParea are on the horizon, and includespolicies dictating how such uses willbe evaluated when they are formallyproposed. Proposals will be rigor-ously reviewed for negative impacts,and areas already targeted for pro-tection (APCs and ADPs) will con-tinue to be protected. Mitigationmeasures will be determined on aproject-by-project basis to ensurethey are tailored to address specificimpacts and issues.

48


Flexibility in the Face of Climate Change

The Ocean SAMP recognizes that global climate change is occurring atrates faster than originally predicted and that management must adapt inresponse. Current research on climate change in the region shows that:

Average annual air temperatures in Rhode Island have risen by 1.7°Fsince 1905.

Annual average water temperatures off the southern New England coasthave risen by about 2.2°F since the 1970s.

In Newport, sea level has risen an average of 0.1 inch per year since 1930.Over the past century, precipitation in Rhode Island has increased by 0.12inch per year.

2297.P32_51_P 4/5/13 1:16 PM Page 48

Renewable energy

Growing demand for electricity inNew England, coupled with con-cerns about climate change and oilsupplies, prompted Rhode Island topledge to obtain 16 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2019. Because wind power is currently the only renewable energygeneration technology capable ofproviding utility-scale energy toRhode Island, the Ocean SAMParea’s offshore wind resources areexpected to play a key role in meeting this pledge. Ocean SAMP research assessed various potential impacts of offshore renewable energy.

Mining

Sand and gravel are increasinglyhard to find on land in Rhode Island. The Ocean SAMP area maypossess these resources in ex-ploitable quantities, and miningthem could become of interest in the future. Potential impacts include destruction of bottom habitat and increased suspendedsediment, which can lead to waterquality issues.

Liquefied natural gas (LNG)

Natural gas shipped overland toRhode Island homes falls short ofcurrent demand, particularly in winter. Offshore LNG facilities, whichstore gas shipped in from afar bytankers, present a prospective solu-

tion, and are considered by some tobe safer than onshore LNG storage.Potential impacts of offshore LNGinclude increased ship traffic and accidental spills.

Short sea shipping

As East Coast highways become fur-ther congested, New England mayturn to short sea shipping—the re-gional-scale movement of cargo viasmall, versatile vessels—to movecargo from port to port. Potentialimpacts include increased vesseltraffic, influx of new invasive species,and increased underwater soundthat could affect marine mammalsand fish.

Artificial reefs

Artificial reefs are boulders, concreteslabs, tires, or wrecks, purposefullyplaced or left in the water to attractfish. Fishermen benefit from result-ing fish aggregations, although it isdebatable whether artificial reefs in-crease overall fish abundance.

Aquaculture

Seafood farming has the potential tocomplement commercial fishing as aproductive use of the Ocean SAMParea’s marine environment. Re-searchers are exploring possibilitiesfor aquaculture in conjunction withoffshore energy structures. Potentialimpacts include competition withwild fisheries and conflicts with energy usage.

Marine reserves and parks

Marine reserves ban the taking ordisruption of wildlife and habitats;marine parks allow limited fishingactivity. Both provide benefits forconservation and fishery enhance-ment. Potential impacts include theremoval of space from extractiveuses and conflicts with fishermen.

Wind energy

The Ocean SAMP area possessesmany attributes of an ideal windpower venue: high wind speeds,strong regional demand for elec -tricity, and well-established localmaritime skills and infrastructure.Moreover, ecological trade-offs appear to be less significant in theOcean SAMP area than in adjacentwaters.

But while the Ocean SAMP area of-fers many advantages for windpower generation, not all parts ofthe area are equally favorable. Anessential task facing Ocean SAMPresearchers was to pinpoint individ-ual locations throughout the OceanSAMP optimal for wind power. Thismeant not only assessing the eco-nomic costs and benefits of windpower throughout the Ocean SAMParea, but also considering the ecological, economic, and social impacts of constructing wind tur-bines in different areas. By ruling outlocations of high value or sensitivityin advance, Ocean SAMP researchgives developers greater confidencethat their projects will be approved, 49

2297.P32_51_P 4/5/13 1:16 PM Page 49

satisfies stakeholder demands without the need for proposal-by-proposal battles, and protects thenatural resources and human usesfound in the areas in question.

Choosing appropriate locationsfor wind energy

The most significant challenge inidentifying favorable sites for windpower stems from the trade-off between maximizing wind speeds,which increase with distance fromshore, and minimizing constructioneffort, which is lower in shallow waters closer to shore. Ocean SAMPresearchers resolved this oppositionby creating the TDI.

The TDI is a site-specific ratio weighing the challenges of wind turbine construction to the expectedenergy output in a given location.Construction challenges are a func-tion of water depth, seafloor hard-ness, and distance from land; energyoutput is a function of wind speeds.The SAMP team calculated a TDI forevery 10,000 square-meter block ofthe Ocean SAMP area.

By mapping the results of this analysis, Ocean SAMP researcherscreated a visual representation ofthe distribution of costs and benefitsof wind power. Based on this picture,they identified two optimal locationsfor wind power in the Ocean SAMParea: a small zone just south of BlockIsland in state waters, and a largerzone just north of Cox’s Ledge in thefederal waters of Rhode Island

Sound. These represent areas wherethe benefits of wind power outweighthe costs by the largest margin.

Potential impacts of windenergy production onecosystems and existinghuman uses

Installation of utility-scale windfarms in the Ocean SAMP area ispredicted to have a number of benefits for Rhode Island, rangingfrom avoided emissions of green-house gases and other pollutants, todiversification of energy sources, toport development and job creation.However, Ocean SAMP researchpoints out that offshore wind farmspose a variety of possible impactson existing ecosystems and humanuses that must be considered when evaluating any proposed development.

CONSTRUCTION Research and modeling suggest thatthe most significant impacts in thewind farm life cycle take place dur-ing construction. Installation of cables and turbine foundations maystir up sediment, possibly smother-ing organisms that live on the seafloor and affecting phytoplanktonproduction and fish eggs and larvae.The noise of pile driving may repelfish and interfere with marine mam-mal communication, possibly leadingto temporary or permanent hearingloss in these animals. Increased ves-sel traffic may cause a decline inwater quality and can disturb andeven lead to collision with marine

animals. Incidence of these effects isexpected to last from a few monthsto a few years, but cumulative im-pacts may last longer.

TURBINE FOUNDATIONS AND

OPERATIONS Research indicates that turbinefoundations can affect their envi-rons in negative and positive ways.At very small scales, they may alterwater flow, alter sediment composi-tion, and reconfigure species composition on the seafloor. Noiseproduced from the moving parts ofa turbine can be transmitted intothe water column and be audible tomammals; for most species, thisnoise is perceptible only within arange of tens of yards, but somecan hear it over several miles. Byproviding hard surfaces in the watercolumn, turbine foundations act asartificial reefs, attracting fish, inver-tebrates, or other species. By creat-ing refuge from birds and mobilefishing gear, turbines may act asmarine reserves, causing fish and invertebrate populations in andaround them to swell. Combined,these effects may alter food websand associated fisheries in unpre-dictable ways.

TURBINE BLADESRotation of turbine blades is thoughtto have potential effects on bird be-havior. Prior research has shown thatsome birds, such as gulls and cor-morants, appear to be drawn to windturbines, while others, such as ducks,seem to avoid them. Potential emi-gration of sea duck populationscould have positive repercussions for

50


2297.P32_51_P 4/5/13 1:16 PM Page 50

their bottom-dwelling prey species.Presence of turbine blades may also affect human uses of the OceanSAMP area by obstructing navigationand transforming visual panoramas.

CABLESLittle is known about the ecologicalimpacts of the submarine cablesused to transmit electricity from windfarms to land. These cables may pro-duce electromagnetic fields, which

have been linked to delayed develop-ment of fish eggs and to both avoid-ance and attraction behavior in fishand crustaceans. Further study maydiscover additional effects.

51

“The TDI considers thewhole study area, and soyou end up with theoptimal area. That’sopposed to what goes onhistorically, which is thatthe developer picks aprime site and thenseveral alternatives,compares the alternativesto the prime, and one issuspicious about how thesites were selected.”

DR. MALCOLM SPAULDING,URI OCEAN ENGINEER

TDI Results Including Effects of Glacial Geology

2297.P32_51_P 4/10/13 7:36 PM Page 51

52

AssessingProgress

2297.P52_64_P 4/5/13 1:22 PM Page 52

53

Marine spatial planning (MSP)is a tool for understanding the governance system and structuring coastalecosystem change

The Ocean SAMP project reflects asignificant focus on understandingthe governance context and offeringpractical policies and solutions thatare appropriate for this context. Agovernance baseline is seen as afoundation for an adaptive processthat uses the principles of ecosys-tem-based management in the im-plementation of MSP. When appliedto MSP, a governance baseline helpsanswer such questions as:

• What are the features of the exist-ing governance system and itsstrengths and weaknesses as theserelate to the desired outcomes of aMSP initiative?

• What are the features and long-term trends in the ecosystems ofconcern and the flows of goods andservices that the MSP initiativeshould address?

• How has the planning process beenstructured to win trust and fostercollaboration among a diversity ofstakeholders?

• Has the MSP initiative been de-signed to incorporate the sciencemost relevant to the issues of theecosystem?

• To what degree are the enabling con-ditions present for the effective im-plementation of the MSP initiative?

• What aspects of the governancestructure are weak and merit additional attention? (Olsen and McCann 2011)

Tracking the processes ofcoastal governance

A simple and widely used frameworkfor documenting coastal governanceprocesses is the Joint Group ofExperts on the Scientific Aspects ofMarine Environmental ProtectionCycle (GESAMP Cycle). The cyclebegins with an analysis of problemsand opportunities (Step 1). It thenproceeds to the formulation of acourse of action (Step 2). Next is astage when stakeholders, managers,and political leaders commit to a setof policies and a plan of action andallocate the resources by which the necessary actions will be imple-mented (Step 3). Implementation

of the policies and actions is Step 4.Evaluation and a re-examination ofhow the issues themselves havechanged rounds out a generation of the management cycle as Step 5.

Ideally, ecosystem governanceevolves as a process of sustainedlearning and adaptation thatproceeds through a sequence ofthese cycles. Each cycle orgeneration of management mayaddress an expanding agenda ofissues and/or a larger geographicarea. This conceptually simple cycle—the Policy Cycle—is useful becauseit draws attention to the inter -dependencies between the stepswithin each generation and between

A Strategic Process for Effecting ChangeMore sustainable forms of coastal development

The Policy Cycle

2297.P52_64_P 4/5/13 1:23 PM Page 53

ASSESSING PROGRESS

Rhode Island Ocean SAMP Policy Cycle: Identification of Key Activities

STEP KEY ACTIVITIES

Step 1: Issue Identifica-tion and Assessment

Taking Stock:1. Define local, state, and global drivers and determine how they influence the process.2. Establish the core team.3. Determine project end date/milestones and budget.

Pre-planning:4. Identify and prioritize stakeholder and client issues. 5. Collect available information for issues and drivers.6. Determine and prioritize research agenda based on meetings and collected information.7. Define Ocean SAMP boundaries, goals and principles. 8. Design a public process that provides stakeholders with both access and influence over decisions.

Step 2: Preparation of the SAMP

Defining and Communicating Existing Conditions:1. Implement the research agenda, focusing on the priorities identified in the “Taking Stock” phase.2. Engage stakeholders in research.3. Communicate research to stakeholders.

Developing Policies Transparently:4. Craft policies for each Ocean SAMP chapter, using stakeholder input and the best available science. 5. Organize workshops and meetings with stakeholders to review chapters and ensure expertise and

concerns incorporated into chapter.

Step 3: Formal Adoption 1. Formal public workshops and public comment period implemented.2. Ocean SAMP is adopted by CRMC.3. Ocean SAMP is adopted NOAA as a routine programmatic change to the Rhode Island Coastal

Management Program.4. The Ocean SAMP is endorsed by lead federal agencies.

Step 4: Implementation 1. Ocean SAMP implementation funding is secured.2. CRMC is implementing adaptive management approaches.3. Permits for new activities within the Ocean SAMP boundaries are processed.4. Performance standards for permitted activities are monitored and enforced.5. Impacts on the ecosystem and selected human activities are monitored. 6. Mechanisms to ensure the Ocean SAMP is the guiding document for the entire study area (both federal

and state waters) are put in place.7. Joint Advisory Working Group is organized.8. Stakeholder advisory committees are organized and commence meeting.

Step 5: Evaluation (Moving Forward with Implementation)

1. Program outcomes are documented. 2. Management issues are reassessed. 3. Priorities and policies are adjusted to reflect experience and changing social and environmental

conditions. 4. External evaluations are conducted at junctures in the program’s evolution. 5. New issues or areas are identified for inclusion in the program. 6. Biannual public forums are held to review monitoring results and revise policies to address the

SAMP goals.

54

2297.P52_64_P 4/5/13 1:23 PM Page 54

55

successive generations of man -agement. The five steps may becompleted in other sequences, as forexample, when an initiative beginswith enactment of a law (Step 3) thatprovides the mandate for analyzingissues and developing a detailed planof action (Steps 1 and 2). Altering thesequence, however, often comes atthe cost of efficiency, as when itbecomes apparent that the authori -ties provided by the law prove to beinadequate for implementing theactions that are required. Progressand learning are greatest when thereare many feedback loops within andbetween the steps (GESAMP 1996;Olsen et al. 1997, 1999).

In the case of the Ocean SAMP, theplan was shaped around a set ofgoals that aim at: 1) Fostering aproperly functioning ecosystem thatis both ecologically sound andeconomically beneficial; 2)Promoting and enhancing existinguses; 3) Encouraging marine-basedeconomic development thatconsiders the aspirations of localcommunities and is consistent with,and complementary to, the state’soverall economic development,social, and environmental needs andgoals; and 4) Building a frameworkfor coordinated decision makingbetween state and federalmanagement agencies.

How effective the SAMP is will bedetermined by the degree to whichthe plan achieves the goals.

Tracking the outcomes ofcoastal governance

The “Orders of Outcomes” (Olsen,2003; UNEP/GPA, 2006; Olsen et al,2009) provides a framework to assess progress toward the goals ofan ecosystem-based managementprogram. Each order is composed oftwo to five categories of indicatorsthat mark the path toward more sustainable forms of development.The framework demonstrates tangi-ble levels of achievement toward theultimate and distant goal of sustain-able development.

The First Order defines the results ofcompleting Steps 1 through 3 of thepolicy cycle. In the case of the OceanSAMP, the First Order examineswhether the enabling conditions have been assembled for the formal adoption of the Ocean SAMP and its subsequent successful implementation.

The Second Order defines the outcomes that are the result of implementing a plan of action (Steps 3 and 4 of the policy cycle).These are grouped into three cate-gories: changes in the behavior of target user groups, changes in the

Orders of Outcomes

2297.P52_64_P 4/5/13 1:23 PM Page 55

56

ASSESSING PROGRESS

behavior of key institutions, andchanges in how and where financial investments are made.

The Third Order marks the achieve-ment of the specific societal and environmental quality goals thatprompted the entire effort. For theOcean SAMP, Third Order impactsare anticipated to include an efficientand equitable decision-makingprocess for new offshore facilities, thegeneration of electrical power fromoffshore wind turbines, and a relateddecrease in the state’s contributionsto carbon dioxide production. Envi-ronmental outcomes may include themitigation or avoidance of negativeimpacts from new offshore facilitieson fish, shellfish, birds, bats, and marine mammals. Evidence of ThirdOrder outcomes usually requires several years to accumulate.

The Fourth Order asks whether theconditions achieved are contributingto a healthy, just, and equitable soci-ety that is sustaining the qualities ofthe ecosystem as a whole. The Fourth Order goal is commensurate to “sustainable development.” Progresstowards the Fourth Order must beassessed over the long term.

Assessing the achievement of the first order outcomes

Based on experience in a wide diversity of settings (Olsen, 2003,Olsen et al, 2009), the hypothesis isthat the following four categories ofoutcomes, or enabling conditions,must be present:

1. Unambiguous goals have beenadopted against which the efforts ofthe program can be measured. Suchgoals must provide the rationale forthe SAMP’s objectives and policies asthese are applied to the: 1) Activitiespermitted in specific areas and; 2)Performance standards that must bemet by activities under the purviewof the SAMP. Such goals and objec-tives must be based upon a thor-ough understanding of the issuesthat the SAMP will address.

2. A core of well-informed and supportive stakeholder consti -tuencies and government agencies actively supports the program. Ideally, there should be a foundationof support for the SAMP among thepublic and within the user groupsthat will be affected by the SAMP’simplementation.

3. Governmental commitment to theinitiative is expressed by the dele -gation of the necessary authoritiesand the allocation of the financial resources required for long-term implementation. Such commitmentmay be expressed by legislation orthrough formal agreements amonggovernmental agencies. Either ap-proach requires consistent and clear

governance arrangements, institu-tional roles (including clarity on alead agency) and decision-makingrules. Formal approval of programpolicies and action plan, by the ap-propriate level of government, signalsthat the First Order threshold of gov-ernmental commitment is in place.

4. Sufficient capacity is presentwithin the institutions responsible forthe program to assemble and imple-ment the SAMP policies and actionplan. Such capacity is expressed bythe ability to: 1) Collect and applyscientific information for decisionmaking; 2) Coordinate interdiscipli-nary teams and resolve conflicts; and3) Design and implement associatedpublic education programs.

Assessing the success of the OceanSAMP in terms of the Second andThird Orders can occur only after aproposal for an offshore wind farm oranother large offshore developmenthas been filed with the appropriatestate and federal agencies and hasbeen evaluated according to theOcean SAMP policies and proce-dures. It will then become apparentwhether the application of the SAMPapproach to a CMSP process incor-porating areas under both state andfederal jurisdiction will produce amore efficient and less contentiousdecision-making process. Over thelong-term, it will be possible to assess whether the SAMP approachhas produced an expression ofecosystem management that strikesa balance between competing humanactivities and sustains the flows ofgoods and services to its associatedhuman population.

2297.P52_64_P 4/5/13 1:24 PM Page 56

Clear Goals (Three Indicators)

Justification for the rankings: At the time of the first ranking, the largest strides, in terms of prioritization of management issues, werebeing made through the TDI effort, which addressed siting potential for offshore renewable energy resources projects. Now, several otherkey issues are being addressed, in great part due to: 1) Significant public input and collaboration among researchers and stakeholders; 2)Issues identified from the European offshore wind turbine experience; and 3) Topics which federal agencies (e.g. BOEM and Army Corpsof Engineers) would require for the siting of offshore renewable energy. For example, due to the success of the SAMP bird studies (stud-ies that would be required by the federal agencies), we have been able to put forth specific protection areas for duck species that forageoff the coast in the SAMP area. In another example, we have been able to develop a regional advisory body comprised of Rhode Islandand Massachusetts fishermen who are committed to enhancing the SAMP further and are providing ongoing feedback on fish resourcesand fisheries issues. While the work of this group, the Fisherman’s Advisory Board, has not been evaluated yet, a framework has been putin place through the SAMP.

Justification for the rankings: At the time of the first ranking, SAMP goals had been discussed in initial fashion with the stakeholder group,but not formalized. By Time 2, through an in-depth public process, goals had been defined that address both societal and environmentaloutcomes.

Justification for the rankings: SAMP policies are not currently detailed in this manner. The team is considering if it has enough informationto develop these goals.

QUESTION 0 1 2 3 Time 1 Time 2

Have management issues tobe addressed by the SAMPbeen identified and prioritized?

No action to date Broad issues identified by project team; some stakeholder involvement.

Some issues identified withstakeholders; prioritization underway.

Issues have beenidentified and prioritized withstakeholders.

2 3


Do the SAMP’s goals defineboth desired societal and environmental conditions?

No goals defined Preliminary goalsare being discussedwith stakeholders.

Desired long-termgoals address either societal orenvironmental outcomes.

Goals define bothdesired societaland environmentaloutcomes.

1 3


Are the SAMP goals detailedthrough time bound andquantitative targets (howmuch, by when)?

No targets defined

Targets are expressed in non-quantitativeterms.

Targets specifyeither a date or a quantitativemeasure, but not both.

Targets havebeen defined inquantitativeterms (how much,by when).

1 1

Baseline Conditions for the Rhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan Process:Progress in Assembling the Enabling Conditions (First Order Outcomes) as of Time 1, August 2009 and Time 2, March 2011

57

2297.P52_64_P 4/5/13 1:24 PM Page 57

58

ASSESSING PROGRESS

Constituencies (Three Indicators)

Justification for the rankings: While major stakeholder groups, including commercial and and recreational fishermen, had been identifiedand contacted by Time 1, the process of identifying specific issues was only getting underway. By time 2, intensive consultations and in-formation gathering – including, especially, the integration of local knowledge—had been completed for the formally adopted OceanSAMP document. User groups continue to be engaged in amendment development and implementation. The high ranking awarded forTime 2 is based on the responses of those who have chosen to engage in the planning process.

Justification for the rankings: Again, these ratings are based upon the reactions of those who have chosen to engage in the process andthe generally favorable reactions of the media.

Justification for the rankings: State agencies, including the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, the Rhode IslandEconomic Development Corporation and the Rhode Island Historical Preservation & Heritage Commission were actively engaged inSAMP development and will be active in its implementation. At the federal level, close communication and consultation with the lead fed-eral agencies has been sustained and there is strong support for the Ocean SAMP process and products.


Do the user groups who willbe affected by the OceanSAMP’s actions understandand support its goals, strategies and targets?

Many importantuser groups areunaware of theOcean SAMP’sgoals, strategiesand targets.

User groups areaware of OceanSAMP goals andtargets but the degree of supportvaries.

With a few impor-tant exceptions,user groups under-stand and supportthe Ocean SAMP.

Relevant usergroups understandOcean SAMP goalsand targets andactively supportthem.

1 3


Is there public support for theOcean SAMP?

There is little pub-lic awareness ofthe Ocean SAMP.

Public awarenessis incipient.

Public support isbuilding up due topublic educationefforts, positivepress coverage,and endorsementfrom communityleaders.

Surveys reveal thatthere is wide pub-lic support for theOcean SAMP andits goals and targets.

1 3


Do the institutions that willassist in implementing theOcean SAMP and/or will beaffected by its actions understand and support its agenda?

There is littleawareness of theOcean SAMPwithin institutionsthat will be important partners during implementation.

While pertinent institutions areaware of theOcean SAMP, theirdegree of supportis unclear.

With few excep-tions, pertinent institutions understand andsupport the MSPand have publiclyendorsed it.

The Ocean SAMPis recognized asimportant and legitimate by institutions thatwill be involved inits implementation.

1 3

2297.P52_64_P 4/5/13 1:24 PM Page 58

59 59

Formal Commitment (Three Indicators)

Justification for the rankings: At the time of the first ranking, the SAMP was in the development phase. Now, the SAMP has been ap-proved by the state of Rhode Island and is in the process of obtaining federal approval.

Justifications for the rankings: As of Time 2, the CRMC has the necessary agreements to implement the SAMP within state waters, so theranking is 3 for that portion of the SAMP area. However, the majority of the SAMP area lies in federal waters beyond the 3-mile limit ofstate jurisdiction. The Ocean SAMP has been designed to plan for this larger area on the assumption that the consistency clause in thefederal Coastal Zone Management Act will: 1) Enable the state to partner with the responsible state agencies when federal permitting actions are made; and 2) Simplify the federal review and permitting process within the SAMP area. The SAMP is being developed in close coordination with the relevant federal agencies. CRMC is working to secure a Geographic Location Description (GLD) which, whenapproved by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, would extend the state’s authority to exercise its federal con -sistency over a wide range of federal actions occurring within a geographically defined area of federal waters within the Ocean SAMParea. CRMC is also planning to develop MOUs with lead offshore renewable agencies (BOEM and the U.S. Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission [FERC]) to ensure that the Ocean SAMP document is recognized as the guiding regulatory document for this area.

Justification for the rankings: The SAMP project is sufficiently funded for planned 2011—2012 implementation, due to the infusion of federal stimulus funds, but there is no formal line item or commitment from any source to support SAMP refinement and continued implementation for the long term.


Has the Ocean SAMP beenformally approved?

Formal approvalprocess has notbeen initiated.

There is a legisla-tive mandate forSAMPs.

Policies and actions are beingnegotiated withapproving authorities.

The SAMP has obtained approvalrequired for implementation

1 2


Has the CRMC been providedwith the authorities it needsto successfully implement theOcean SAMP?

CRMC authoritiesare inadequate.

CRMC has the nec-essary mandateand authorities.

The necessaryagreements withstate and federalagencies are beingnegotiated.

The necessaryagreements forSAMP implemen-tation have beennegotiated withstate and federalagencies.

2 2


Have sufficient financial re-sources been committed tofully develop and implementthe SAMP over the long term?

No financial resources committed for implementationof the SAMP

Some pledges andcommitments aresecured, but signif-icant funding gapsremain.

Adequate shortterm funding (twoyears) is securedfor developing theSAMP

.Sufficient financialresources are inplace to fully im-plement the SAMPover the long term.

2 2

2297.P52_64_P 4/5/13 1:25 PM Page 59

60

ASSESSING PROGRESS

Institutional Capacity (Four Indicators)

Justification for the rankings: CRMC recognizes that it does not currently have the staff capacity necessary for implementing the SAMPin both state and federal waters. It does have the necessary capacity for SAMP implementation in state waters. The Ocean SAMP regula-tions, however, require that when CRMC is engaged in the review and oversight for large offshore development anywhere within theOcean SAMP area, the developer will cover the cost for CRMC to contract the necessary expertise that is required. CRMC will also con-tinue to maintain its relationship with URI to acquire science and technical expertise as needed.

Justification for the rankings: The ranking remains at a 2 because two potential pilot projects are awaiting possible development and im-plementation. First, there is the possibility that five to eight wind turbines may be installed off the southeast shore of Block Island. Thiswould, in effect, be a pilot project for the proposed 100 larger turbines to be subsequently sited in federal waters within the SAMP region.Second, there is the Area of Mutual Interest (AMI) effort which would provide an innovative test case in terms of regional coordinationbetween Rhode Island and Massachusetts on offshore renewable energy siting initiatives in federal waters. However, the planning forthese projects is at a standstill.

Justification for the rankings: CRMC has established a strong working relationship with URI to provide continuous technical support toimplement the SAMP. This relationship, however, is based on grant or soft money. Through the Ocean SAMP regulations, CRMC will needto gain the necessary technical expertise for making decisions on large offshore development when necessary.

Justification for the rankings: As the SAMP is now being implemented within state waters, the project has had the opportunity to un-dergo its first round of program amendments and revisions, and to benefit from the ongoing incorporation of new research data. Thus,SAMP policies and the science that informs them are being integrated into the process and are expressions of adaptive management.This will be monitored as the SAMP process continues. The greater challenges of adaptive management will likely occur as the processfor negotiating permits for major offshore facilities gets underway.


Have the institutions responsi-ble for SAMP implementationdemonstrated their capacityto implement its plan of action?

Institutional capacity neces-sary to implementthe SAMP is notpresent.

Institutional capacity to implement theSAMP is marginal.

In some key insti -tutions insti tutionalcapacity is ade-quate but there areimportant weak-nesses in others.

Sufficient institu-tional capacity ispresent in institu-tions with responsi-bilities for implementing the SAMP.

2 2


Have important actions andpolicies been successfullytested at the pilot scale?

No pilot actionshave been initiated.

Pilots are underway to assess viability of actions andpolicies.

Pilots are completed andoutcomes haveshaped actionsand policies.

Policies and construction stan-dards have beensuccessfully testedat pilot level.

2 2


Does the Ocean SAMP projectpossess the human resourcesto implement its plan of action?

No personnelhave been as-signed responsi-bility for programimplementation.

Staffing for program imple-mentation is inadequate.

Staffing is adequate in someinstitutions but notin others.

Sufficient humanresources are inplace to fullyimple ment theprogram.

2 2


Has the Ocean SAMP project demonstrated theability to practice adaptivemanagement?

No evidence of adaptive management.

Practice of adap-tive managementis incipient and isbeing expressed asminor adjustmentsto operational procedures.

Important insti -tutions engage in periodic self assessments andhave modifiedtheir behaviorbased on experi-ence and learning.

Program as a whole hasdemonstrated its ability to learnand adapt bymodifying im -portant targetsand/or policies.

2 3

2297.P52_64_P 4/5/13 1:25 PM Page 60

61

AS-

SESSING

PROGRESS

ACOE: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

ADP: Area Designated for Protection

AMI: Area of Mutual Interest

APC: Area of Particular Concern

BOEM: U.S. Bureau of Energy Management

CMSP: Coastal and Marine SpatialPlanning

COP: Construction and Operations Plan

CRC: URI Coastal Resources Center

CRC/RISG: University of Rhode Island Coastal ResourcesCenter/Rhode Island Sea Grant College Program

CRMC: Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management CouncilCoastal Zone Management Act

FAB: Fishermen’s Advisory Board

FERC: Federal Energy RegulatoryCommission

GESAMP: Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection

GLD: Geographic Location Designation

HAB: Habitat Advisory Board

JAWG: Joint Agency Working Group

LNG: Liquified Natural Gas

MOU: Memorandum of Understanding

MSP: Marine Spatial Planning

NIT: Narragansett Indian Tribe

NOAA: National Oceanographic andAtmospheric Administration

NOAA/NMFS: National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration/National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA/OCRM: National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration/Office of Ocean andCoastal Resource Management

NOPP: National Oceanographic Partnership Program

NUWC: U.S. Naval Undersea WarfareCenter

Ocean SAMP: Rhode Island OceanSpecial Area Management Plan

REZ: Renewable Energy Zone

RIDEM: Rhode Island Department ofEnvironmental Management

RIOER: Rhode Island Office of Energy Resources

RISAA: Rhode Island Saltwater Anglers Association

RISG: Rhode Island Sea Grant College Program

SAMP: Special Area ManagementPlan

SAP: Site Assessment Plan

TAC: Technical Advisory Committee

TDI: Technology Development Index

URI: University of Rhode Island

USCG: U.S. Coast Guard

Acronyms

61

2297.P52_64_P 4/5/13 1:25 PM Page 61

62

Douvere, F. 2008. The importance ofmarine spatial planning in advancingecosystem-based, sea use manage-ment. Marine Policy (pdf, 1.03MB), Volume 32: 762-771

Douvere, F., and Ehler, C. N. 2009.New perspectives on sea use man-agement: Initial findings from Euro-pean experience with marine spatialplanning. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(1), 77-88.

Ehler, C. and Douvere, F. Visions for a Sea Change. Report of the FirstInternational Workshop on MarineSpatial Planning. IntergovernmentalOceanographic Commission andMan and the Biosphere Programme.IOC Manual and Guides, 46: ICAMDossier, 3. Paris: UNESCO, 2007(English).

Ehler, C. 2008. Conclusions: Benefits, Lessons Learned, and Future Challenges of Marine Spatial Planning. Marine Policy, 32,pp. 840-843.

FXM Associates. 2008a. EconomicEffects of Allens Avenue Businesses.Prepared for the Providence Working Waterfront Alliance, Rhode Island.

FXM Associates. 2008b. EconomicEffects of the Port of Davisville, RI.Prepared for the Quonset Develop-ment Corporation, Rhode Island.

Gentner, B. and Steinback, S. 2008.The Economic Contribution of Marine Angler Expenditures in theUnited States, 2006. U.S. Dept. ofCommerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-94.

GESAMP (Joint Group of Experts onthe Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection). 1996. TheContributions of Science to CoastalZone Management. Rep. Stud.GESAMP, (61):66 p.

IOC. 2007. Visions for Sea Change:Report of the First InternationalWorkshop on Marine Spatial Plan-ning: Manual and Guides. No. 48, Intergovernmental OceanographicCommission, IOCAM Dossier No. 4.

Juda, L. 1999. Considerations in De-veloping a Functional Approach tothe Governance of Large MarineEcosystems. 30 Ocean Developmentand International Law 89-125.

Juda, L. and Hennessey, T. 2001.Governance Profiles and the Man-agement of the Uses of Large MarineEcosystems. 32 Ocean Developmentand International Law 41-67.

McLeod, K.L., and Lubchenco, J.,Palumbi, S.R., Rosenberg, A. A. Scientific consensus statement onmarine ecosystembased manage-ment. Prepared by scientists andpolicy experts to provide informa-tion about coasts and oceans to U.S. policymakers. Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea(COMPASS). 2005

Ninigret Partners. 2007. Rhode Island Recreational Saltwater FishingIndustry Trends and Economic Im-pact. Prepared for the RI SaltwaterAnglers Association.

National Marine Fisheries Service.2010. Fisheries Economics of theUnited States, 2008. U.S. Dept. Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo.NMFS-F/SPO-109, 177 p.

National Oceans Economics Program. 2009. Ocean Economy:Rhode Island. Online at:http://www.oceaneconomics.org.Last accessed October 21, 2009.

Naval Undersea Warfare Center(NUWC) Division Newport. 2009.NUWC Division Newport’s economicimpact topped half-billion mark in2008. Press Release, January 29,2009. Online at:http://www.navsea.navy.mil/nuwc/newport/pages/pr.aspx. Last accessedOctober 21, 2009.

Literature CitedASSESSING PROGRESS

2297.P52_64_P 4/5/13 1:26 PM Page 62

Olsen, S.B. (2003) Frameworks andindicators for assessing progress inintegrated coastal management initiatives. Ocean & Coastal Management 46 (3-4): 347-361.

Olsen, S.B. and McCann J. (2011).“Rhode Island’s Approach to MarineSpatial Planning.” Unpublishedpaper.

Olsen, S.B., Fugate G., McCann J. andSpaulding M. (2010) “Assemblingthe Enabling Conditions for the Implementation of a Marine SpatialPlan: Rhode Island’s Approach.” Unpublished paper.

Olsen, S.B., G.G. Page, E. Ochoa.2009. The Analysis of GovernanceResponses to Ecosystem Change: AHandbook for Assembling a Profile.Land-Ocean Interactions in theCoastal Zone (LOICZ) Reports andStudies #34.

Olsen, S.B., Tobey, J. and Zhou L.(2009). “The Baseline ConditionsFor The Implementation of TheRhode Island Ocean Special Area Management Plan.” Unpub-lished paper.

Olsen, S.B., Lowry, K. & Tobey, J.(1999) A Manual for AssessingProgress in Coastal Management.Coastal Resources Center, Universityof Rhode Island, Narragansett.

Rabinowicz, E., Thomson, K.J. andNalin, E. (2001). Subsidiarity, theCAP and EU enlargement. SwedishInstitute for Food and AgriculturalEconomics: Lund (Sweden). 2001:3

Sherman, K. and Hempel, G. (Edi-tors) 2008. The UNEP Large MarineEcosystem Report: A perspective onchanging conditions in LMEs of theworld’s Regional Seas. UNEP Re-gional Seas Report and Studies No.182. United Nations EnvironmentProgramme. Nairobi, Kenya.

Spaulding, M. L., A. Grilli, C. Damon,and G. Fugate, 2010, Application ofTechnology Development Index andPrincipal Component Analysis andCluster Methods to Ocean Renew-able Energy Facility Siting, Journalof Marine Technology, Special Edition on Offshore Wind, JanuaryFebruary 2010

State of Rhode Island. Coastal Resources Management Council. The Rhode Island Ocean SpecialArea Management Plan, V. I and II.Rhode Island: Narragansett, 2010.Print and web.

Thunberg, E. 2008. Trends in Selected Northeast Region MarineIndustries. Woods Hole, MA: NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-tration Northeast Fisheries ScienceCenter, July 2008.

UNEP/GPA (2006) Ecosystem-Based Management: Markers for Assessing Progress. UNEP/GPA, The Hague.

University of Rhode Island CoastalResources Center and Sustaina -Metrix. 2010. H n Mpoano: OurCoast, Our Future — Western Regionof Ghana Building Capacity forAdapting to a Rapidly ChangingCoastal Zone.

63

2297.P52_64_P 4/5/13 1:26 PM Page 63

64

ASSESSING PROGRESS

646464

2297.P52_64_P 4/5/13 1:26 PM Page 64



2013




oceanSAMP2297.COV_P 4/5/13 2:47 PM Page 1

2297.COV_P 4/5/13 2:38 PM Page 2

Documents

oceanSAMP - Rhode Island Sea GrantGraphics consultant: Kim Plosia All photos property of URI Coastal Resources Center/Rhode Island Sea Grant College Program except where noted. 2 U