Science Before Policy: The Case for a Narragansett Bay Use Plan
Dennis Nixon, Professor
Department of Marine Affairs
Dennis Nixon earned a BA in history from Xavier University, a JD from the University of Cincinnati, and a Master of Marine Affairs from URI. As a professor of Marine Affairs, he teaches courses in fisheries, admiralty, and coastal zone law. Nixon is also legal counsel for the University National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS), where he advises the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on marine law and insurance issues.
One of the basic tenets of good governance is
that policy choices should be illuminated by sound science. Despite the fundamental
logic behind informed decision making, such an approach has not yet been undertaken
for Rhode Island's most precious resource, Narragansett Bay. Although the Narragansett
Bay Summit 2000 highlighted many of the issues that impact the health of the
Bay, it all but ignored two of the most important policy issues that have been
publicly debated over the past several years: the proposed dredging of the Providence
River to maintain the channel to the Port of Providence and the development
of a container port at Quonset Point/Davisville. Both projects have been considered
independent of their impacts on the other valuable uses of the Bay. It's a little
like two members of a family undertaking major home renovations without consulting
each other.
Choices must be made, but they should be based
upon the best scientific information that is available. Narragansett Bay is
one of the most extensively studied bodies of water on this planet, and yet
there has been little use of that data in the controversy over the two proposals.
A Narragansett Bay Use Plan would identify all the constituencies that have
an interest in the Bay, evaluate their environmental and economic impacts, and
recommend policies that minimize the potential for conflict. The plan would
also identify the areas where further research is needed. Just who are the constituencies
who have a stake in a Bay use plan? At least four major industries will have
to be represented: fishing, recreational boating, coastal tourism, and marine
transportation.
What questions need to be asked about the existing
uses of the Bay? The fishing industry is one of the most complex to analyze.
The term "industry" embraces both recreational and commercial fisheries
interests. Recreational fishermen dwarf commercial interests in number and influence.
Many advocate the abolition of net fishing in Narragansett Bay, similar to a
ban introduced in Florida several years ago. They argue that bottom trawling
destroys Bay habitat; commercial fishermen respond that this is simply an allocation
issue in which they are outnumbered. The Rhode Island General Assembly recently
instituted a moratorium on new commercial fishing licenses and has given the
Rhode Island Marine Fisheries Council a year to create a more effective license
and regulation program. Many traditional finfish populations are at record lows,
but it is difficult to ascertain if the cause is overfishing, habitat destruction,
pollution, natural variation, or some combination of these factors. The lobster
industry is under pressure to reduce the number of traps in the water, increase
the minimum catch size, and prepare for the potential advance of the mysterious
shell disease that had a catastrophic effect on the lobster fishery in western
Long Island Sound last year. The number of quahog diggers has declined, and
they face increasing competition from an aquaculture industry that is expanding
and in search of new sites. The finfish, lobster, and quahog fisheries and the
recreational fishing industry will be directly affected by either of the two
port plans now being discussed.
The recreational boating industry encompasses
diverse manufacturers, retailers, marinas, and yacht clubs that depend on good
water quality, easy public access, and freedom from conflicting navigational
uses. Since the Bay was designated a federal no-discharge zone several years
ago, the pollution from recreational vessels is caused primarily by toxic bottom
paints, fueling accidents, and the discharge of unburned oil from two-cycle
engines. Marinas are often located in shallow coves and estuaries that require
maintenance dredging. Without an approved marine disposal site, marinas are
or will soon be shallower and their capacity to accommodate boats will be reduced.
The state's tradition of outstanding yacht design and construction, developed
by the Herreshoff yard in Bristol, is maintained today by companies such as
Hall, Hood, Goetz, Alden, and New England Boat Works. While these companies
have helped to preserve Rhode Island's reputation as a center of excellence
for large yachts, small boat manufacturers have prospered as well. Recreational
boaters often transport their Lasers, Sunfish, and other small boats with cartop
carriers and trailers to the Bay. These boaters need a place to launch their
vessels and water clean enough to make the experience safe and enjoyable. There
has not been a recent economic analysis of the recreational boating industry.
A detailed look could result in a decision to invest more heavily in this area,
with both financial support from the state and preferred status for recreational
boaters when conflicts occur with other user groups.
The coastal tourism industry is another significant
yet hard-to-measure user of the Bay. Everyone in South County is well aware
of the perils of beach traffic when Routes 1 and 1A turn into parking lots.
What is more difficult to determine is how important the beaches are to Rhode
Islanders and residents of nearby states. How much is spent in coastal communities
because of the perceived quality of Bay waters? How dependent is the real estate
industry on water access and water views for high prices? Other states have
witnessed major conflicts when the "view-scape" of a coastal property
owner is disturbed. For example, salmon aquaculture in Maine has raised the
ire of summer colonists who dislike the view of the netpens floating in front
of their homes. In South Carolina, coastal residents have objected to the high-intensity
lighting used at a container terminal near Charleston. When does mere irritation
become a measurable impact on property values? What is the cost to coastal tourism
revenues of lost opportunities? Both Providence and East Providence have recently
outlined plans to revitalize their urban waterfronts, but they must also address
the need to relocate the existing oil terminals. In addition, most old industrial
sites have significant soil contamination problems that will have to be analyzed
and addressed before redevelopment can occur. That research should be undertaken
as soon as possible.
Finally, the marine transportation industry is
one of the least understood and yet one of the most vital users of Narragansett
Bay. Refined petroleum products account for most of the volume and value of
the cargo. Four oil terminals in Providence and East Providence supply virtually
all of the gasoline and fuel oil used in the state. Because the Port of Providence
is located in a river channel with a high rate of sediment deposition, it requires
dredging on a relatively frequent basis to keep the channel deep enough for
large vessels to use. Since the river drains an area historically occupied by
polluting industries, much of the sediment is contaminated. An early proposal
to place those materials in a "borrow pit" off East Providence was
met with fierce opposition by that city's government; they feared that the contaminated
materials deposited in the pit, even if capped with clean fill, would affect
their coastal water quality. A companion proposal to dump the relatively clean
remaining materials in a deep hole adjacent to Hog Island was met with similar
hostility from local governments and the fishing industry. Dumping the material
on shore has been rejected as too costly and potentially dangerous to groundwater.
The only remaining alternative is to dump further offshore, which is more expensive
and certain to be resisted by both recreational and commercial fishermen. Should
the existing channel be dredged at all? Most of the oil that enters the port
today arrives in barges in coastwise transport from mid-Atlantic refineries.
How long will the channel be safe for tugs and barges? Could a smaller dredging
project keep the port operational while another long-term, solution is sought?
The debate over the Providence River channel
has been eclipsed in recent years by the state's proposal to build a container
port at Quonset/Davisville. The reason to build a port there is simple: The
United States government built a great facility when it filled hundreds of acres
of the Bay to build a port and airfield. As the new owner, the state of Rhode
Island should continue those uses and combine them with a mix of activities
that maximizes the property's value. Unfortunately, the first development proposal
seriously entertained by the state was enormously controversial, largely because
it proposed filling more than 500 acres of the Bay to create space for the new
terminal. Opposition to the plan was strong and well organized. It raised important
issues relating to the transportation infrastructure needed for the project
and questioned most of the promises of jobs and economic growth made by the
proponents.
Recently, a "Quonset II" container
port proposal was presented, with more realistic projections of costs and benefits
for a smaller facility. Still focused on containers alone, "Quonset Lite"
would require filling between 38 and 114 acres of the Bay to create a terminal
of about 170 acres. The state now recognizes that it will probably need to finance
the environmental permitting and at least part of the dredging of the Quonset
channel. Fortunately, it appears that the dredge material would be relatively
clean and could be used beneficially, for construction aggregate and beach nourishment.
The Rhode Island Economic Development Corporation has hired a consultant to
develop a strategic plan for all of Quonset/Davisville, including the port,
which should be completed in 2001. Should that plan also include an oil import
facility in case Providence and East Providence decide to redevelop their urban
waterfronts? Shouldn't the oil industry become more involved in such a plan?
That brings us back to the need for a study of
all Bay use/development issues, since virtually all the existing and proposed
uses impact each other. Only a well-researched and integrated plan can avoid
the political controversy and permit paralysis that has characterized the proposed
Providence River dredging and the first generation Quonset megaport. Governor
Almond has indicated that he will support a Bay development plan as long as
it's developed simultaneously with the Quonset/Davisville master plan now underway.
Save the Bay, the state's largest environmental group, has demonstrated its
strong support for such an initiative on several occasions. How and where could
a project like this be completed? The URI Coastal Institute on the Narragansett
Bay Campus is now operational and is perfectly situated as a neutral forum to
research, discuss, and debate these issues during the next year. Initially funded
by a publicly supported bond issue, the Coastal Institute is a resource whose
mission is to bridge the gap between university research and the problems of
the "real world." Without a political axe to grind, and inclusive
in its approach, the Coastal Institute has picked up where the Bay Summit left
off to develop sound policy alternatives based on all we already know about
the Bay. Any gaps in information should then receive high research priority
from state, federal, and private funding sources. It's an opportunity we shouldn't
miss.