URI Coastal Resources CenterRhode Island Sea Grant, January 2016
50
stakeholder groups established in [the SAMP] process as other development proposals move
forward.”
2. Dredge Spoils Disposal
Disposal of dredge spoils is not a new use of the Ocean SAMP area. There is already a
USACE dredge disposal site in Rhode Island Sound. This site, the Rhode Island Sound Disposal
Site, or Area 69B, was used for the short‐term project of dredging the Providence River and
Harbor starting in 2001. In 2004, the EPA designated it a long‐term disposal site.
33
Interview participants
report that more recently, USACE has been considering the site as a disposal location
for spoils from a Long Island Sound dredging project. Fugate shared his agency’s concerns
about this: Area 69B is a fixed capacity site, and once it is full, it will no longer be available
to receive additional materials should another Rhode Island dredging need arise. Given
this, Rhode Island is considering how to use spatial planning to attain greater influence over
future dredge spoils disposal in the Ocean SAMP area. Dredge
spoils disposal was the single use NOAA did not approve for inclusion in the GLD —
because, as noted earlier, CRMC could not produce enough data at the time to prove “reasonably
foreseeable effects” of use of Area 69B on Rhode Island’s coastal resources, such as
effects on commercial fishing in the vicinity of the site. If Rhode Island is to make another attempt
to include dredge spoils disposal in the GLD, it needs data to support that argument. “Now
our hurdle is higher,” said CRMC’s Grover Fugate. “Because now we have to show that there
is a problem, or that there is potential for a problem. Or, given our present level of knowledge
now, that dredge disposal might cause problems. We would have to generate some additional
scientific data to show, for instance, that sediments are moving off the site, or that there
are impacts that weren’t anticipated at the time of the disposal.” Because this would require
more funding, research to help answer these questions may have to wait.
ii. Updating Data and Adapting Policies
The emergence of new uses of the Ocean SAMP area is only one of the changes that
could cause the SAMP to become outdated. In addition, the underlying ecological and social
contexts of the Ocean SAMP area may change. Crafters of the Ocean SAMP anticipated these
changes by including several provisions for evaluating and updating the plan to ensure its
continued relevance. These include the establishment of a Science Research Agenda to identify
data gaps and ways to fill them; a biennial assessment that evaluates progress towards Ocean
URI Coastal Resources CenterRhode Island Sea Grant, January 2016
51
SAMP goals; and a major review and update every five years with new stakeholder and data
inputs. Some
interview participants commented that implementing adaptive management can feel
like an extra step when implementation is going smoothly and the plan is serving its purpose
well. But, they add that it is important to think ahead and ensure the Ocean SAMP does
not become another document ‘sitting on the shelf.’ “We really need to live up to our pledge
to reevaluate the SAMP and its policies as we get new information,” affirmed CLF’s Tricia
Jedele, who has participated extensively in the Ocean SAMP as a stakeholder and HAB member.
“ . . . Because the data will change. And we know that in the face of climate change, the
environment will change, and what we thought was true in 2008 may no longer be true in 2015.”
1. Biennial Assessment, 2013
