Coastal Regulations Governing Urban Waterfront Redevelopment And Implications For Brownfields In The Jewelry District
Both CRMC’s Metro Bay SAMP and amended UCG policies state the admirable goal to preserve, protect, restore and enhance the quality of Narragansett Bay’s coastal waters for anthropogenic uses as well as for the natural integrity of the ecosystem within an urbanized context of continued economic and social growth. However, these programs may be less able to address waterfront quality concerns than their stated purpose would suggest, in part because they heavily emphasize human interests (health and development opportunity) and site-specific impact (regulations for onsite building, not influences felt downriver), rather than the whole water system. While the Urban Coastal Greenway program mentions off-site impacts, for example, its definition of “impact” to wetlands is limited to literal development upon the wetland.
UCG {link to http://www.crmc.ri.gov/regulations/programs/UCG10oct06.pdf to read a pdf version of the document} policies pertain to the quality of coastal waters by:
- Prohibiting uses and activities along the water
- Managing storm-water and associated pollution runoff
- Requiring a buffer zone between new development and the river or bay
- Considering or not considering sea level rise
- Exempting certain development types from the program’s jurisdiction
- PROHIBITED USES
The UCG program prohibits residential and commercial activities that would produce hazards (which might then enter coastal waters through groundwater flow or surface runoff), such as petrochemicals, hazardous materials, and so on.
- STORMWATER MANAGEMENT
Apart from the importance of reducing non-point source urban runoff (from pesticides, vehicle-source chemicals like petroleum and antifreeze, etc.) to the Providence River and ultimately Narragansett Bay, storm-water management practices will be especially relevant when onsite contamination is probable – as is the case for Dynamo House and the vacant lot at 360 Eddy Street. The reduction of the volume of water allowed to pass through a site unfiltered (on the surface or through underlying soil and groundwater) becomes associated with further concerns if the site is a brownfield.
The UCG program recognizes that stormwater management on brownfield sites must be handled differently than on ordinary redevelopment properties along the water, with the expectation that it may be more difficult for brownfields to accomplish 100% on-site treatment, as is required for all other properties. While this recognition is certainly incentive for developers, it may undermine the ultimate goals of public health and ecosystem vitality, especially since, in some cases, the low impact stormwater management technologies that UCG advocates can be used to capture contaminants as a form of remediation {LID technologies}. (Water quality monitoring adjacent to the site would help determine if this is indeed true, and will help determine if the judgment that some loading of pollutants can be tolerated is acceptable. The importance of water quality monitoring is mentioned in LINK TO HOW CAN WE IMPROVE THE WATERFRONT REDEVELOPMENT APPROACH – FUTURE)
CRMC assumes the effectiveness of LID technologies in dealing with storm-water, and no post-implementation monitoring of water quantity or quality is required. This is based on faith in the technologies, whose effectiveness has been proven in lab and field research elsewhere. However, it would be useful to monitor the impact of LID technologies periodically, especially if used on brownfield parcels, because of the implication for remediation innovations as well as the importance of thwarting the travel of contaminants to the waterfront ecosystem.
- BUFFER ZONE
UCG upholds the 200-foot buffer zone required under the Metro Bay SAMP, but recognizes that urban developers may not want or be able to meet this requirement and provides a systematic menu of options that can enhance other aspects of the site while reducing the buffer. In some cases, the value associated with the reduction in buffer width can be transferred to a fund used in the maintenance and protection of wetlands within the Metro Bay region.
The 200-foot buffer zone width appears to be arbitrary, with no scientific data contributing directly to the number, in terms of how far a setback is needed to reduce marine pollution as a result of coastal development . That said, the buffer will make a difference for water quality of the adjacent river system, although there is no way to quantify the effect of reducing the 200-foot buffer . Increasing the amount of vegetation on a site may allow for a net loss or gain of approximately zero, due to bio-retention capacities of plantings.
Looking at the buffer requirement within a brownfields redevelopment framework raises issues of prevention of contaminated runoff, filtration or travel of in-ground contaminants, and vulnerability of the waterfront ecosystem to contamination as a result of flooding that may permeate beyond a natural buffer. As a result, greater consideration needs to be given to the size of the buffer. Modeling should be used to determine to the best possible understanding: the role of the buffer in keeping contamination out of the waterway, as well as the degree to which its size reduction and the increase of other factors such as vegetation may have implications for water quality.
- SEA LEVEL CONSIDERATIONS
UCG does not currently take sea level rise into account in its creation of the buffer zone or in its regulations regarding the height of development. Sea level rise should be a concern not only in terms of property damage and flood risk, but also because it may affect how brownfields cleanup is approached and conducted on waterfront parcels. A rising sea level affects the water table as well as bringing the water’s edge tighter around the property. Climate change also will affect the severity of storms, which are already magnified at the top of the bay (where Providence is located) due to a concentrating effect. These factors may render certain kinds of containment and remediation strategies insufficient with the changing conditions, and will potentially alter assumptions made now about how onsite contaminants will behave.
CRMC is working on sea level rise considerations outside of the UCG document, but apparently in regards to physical development (i.e. property damage), rather than implications for underground contamination that may be exposed or permeated by saltwater intrusion.
- EXEMPTIONS
Commercial and industrial port activities are exempted from UCG regulation, though they are addressed by CRMC’s Red Book. While JD redevelopment is unlikely to include new utilities, ports or major industrial facilities, the exemption is nonetheless of some concern to redevelopment efforts in the area. By nature, any port activity cannot follow the same rules stated for other development, but it would be sensible to set down rules within the same program to provide boundaries for non-commercial and non-residential development as part of the UCG vision. Otherwise, commercial and industrial development could threaten the stated mission of the program to protect and enhance coastal resources.
The South Street Power Plant, current site of Heritage Harbor redevelopment, is an example of a waterfront utility with a legacy of contamination over which the public must now be concerned. This has interfered with Providence’s vision for public access, community pride and health. Although there is now opportunity for revitalization, the South Street Power Plant history offers an example of possible problems with exempting commercial and industrial activities from UCG regulation.
Not every exempted activity would pose a huge environmental risk to the public and the coastal ecosystem; indeed, some port activities might be conducted in a sustainable manner. That said, the goals of the UCG program, while never explicitly including the prevention of reoccurring brownfields as an issue, implicitly address areas that will prevent brownfield recreation. The removal of commercial and industrial port development from the scheme of the program may remove some barriers to future brownfield reoccurrence and the environmental issues associated. Their absence from the document certainly does not allow the opportunity to mandate that sustainability be an express goal in commercial and industrial activities along the water. LINK TO SUSTAINABILITY PAGE BY AARON & VERNER
|