Upper Narragansett Bay an urban estuary in transition, preliminary report

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

UP PER'/ ARRAGANSETT
An Urban Estuary inTransitigon
Preliminary Report

VIC
Donald D. Robadue, Jr.
(ZOO
Virginia Lee
1980

Coastal Resources Center
University of Rhode Island
87 or
.N2 Marine Technical Report 79
R6
1980
AIM% BAY)
no.79

Acknowledgments

Many minds and hands contributed to the preparation of the issue papers and
this report. Stephen Olsen, director of the Coastal Resources Center,
developed the initial concept for the project and provided thoughtful
guidance throughout the effort. Research assistants Jonathan Auerbach and
Walter Cooper, and interns Michael DeLuca, and Susan Harvey conducted
research and interviews and prepared various memoranda and maps for the
issue papers. JoanneRose, and the School of Oceanography illustration
services staff drew most of the fiRures and maps. Debi Clarke typed both
this report and the individual issue papers as they were prepared.

We thank the many people who supplied information, ideas and insights
about the Upper Bay as the project unfolded. They include the participants
in the Upper Bay working committee; Jack Lyons of the Coastal Resources
Management Council; Richard Sisson of the Department of Environmental
Management; Manny Cannario of the Department of Health; Andreas Holmsen,
Department of Resource Economics, University of Rhode Island; Michael Everett,
Rhode Island School of Design; the New England Division United States Army,
Corps of Engineers, Waltham, Mass.; the Coalition of Coastal Communities;
and Mrs. Richardson of photographic archives of the Providence Public Library.

We would also like to thank the various staff members of municipal govern-
ment and planning offices of each of the Upper Bay communities who assisted
us along with many of the staff members of several state offices particularly
the Statewide Planning Program, Department of Environmental Management,
Department of Transportation, and Governor's Office.

Finally, we are grateful to Save the Bay and the League of Women Voters
for providing us the opportunity to present some of this material at their
public workshops.

The preparation of this publication was financed in part by a planning grant
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, under the provisions
of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-583), through the
Integrated Grant Administration program administered as part of Federal
Regional Council grant FRC-JF-01-11.

475-10/80 P 884

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction and Summary

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Urban Estuary . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Major Issues . . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
The Port Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
The Need for Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
References . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Chapter 2: Fisheries

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Shellfishing in the Upper Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Historical Perspective on Major Shellfisheries in the Upper Bay
Oysters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Softshell Clams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Quahogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 12
Status of the Present Fishery . . . . .1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Finfish in the Upper Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
'Historical Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
.Status of the Present Fishery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.
Menhaden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Sportfish . . . . . ... . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Government Policies and Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Pollution Effects onthe Finfishery . . . . . . . . . . . ... 30
Summary Findings: Upper Bay Fisheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31-
References . . . . . . . . I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Chapter 3: Ports

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Growth and Development of Providence Harbor . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 37
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Historical Activity . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Harbor Improvements 38
Present Harbor Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Present Harbor and Port Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Waterborne Cargo Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Shorefront Land Use . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Development Plans and Programs . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 56
Conditions for Renewal and Future Growth- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Public Commitment and Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Physical and Environmental Improvements . . . . . o . . . . . . . 60
A Development Strategy for Providence Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . 63
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

US Department of Commerce
NOAA Coastal Services Center Library
2234 South Hobson Avenue
L Charleston, SC 29405-2413

Chapter 4: Recreation

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Recreation Needs of U;ban*R;sid;nt's* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Recreation Along the Upper Bay Shore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Shoreline Access . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Parkland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Beaches . . . . 74
Recreational Boating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Urban Waterfront Recreation Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Protecting Sites with Recreation and Conservation Values . . . . . . 82
1-,.'ast Bay Bikeway and Providence River Linear Park. . .. . . . . . . . 85
Improvements in Recreational Boating . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . 87
Access for Sport Fishing . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . 88
Removal of Debris . . . . . . . I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Re f erences . . . . @. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Appendix A: Metropolitan Development and Estuarine Resources

Introduction . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Urbanization of Upper Bay Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Settlement and Economic Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Suburbanization and Coastal Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Residential Character of Upper Bay Coastal Towns . . . . . . ... . . 99
Implications of the No-Growth Metropolitan Area . . . . . . . . . . 106
The Urban Estuary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-0
Susceptibility to Erosion and Flooding ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Tributary Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Fields Point Sewage Treatment Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

List of Figures

Chapter 1: Introduction and Summary

Figure 1-1. Upper Narragansett Bay
Figure 1-2. Population Changes in Providence and Rhode Island 1700-1970

Chapter 2: Fisheries

Figure 2@1. Leased Oyster Grounds in Narragansett Bay, 1914..
Figure 2-2. Shellfish Catch 1880 to 1960.
Figure 2-3. Trend in Soft Shell Clam Landings From Rhode Island Coastal Waters.
Figure 2-4. Trend in Rhode Island Commercial Landings for Quahogs.
Figure 2-5. Recent Trend in the Numbers of Commercial Quahog Licenses Issued
to Rhode Islanders.
Figure 2-6. Percent of any Given Year That Upper Narragansett Bay Shellfish
Beds are Closed by R.I. Department of Health
Figure 2-7. Map of Upper Narragansett Bay Showing the Area of the Upper
Bay and Providence River Permanently Closed. to Shellfishing
Because of Coliform Pollution.
Figure 2-8. Map of Narragansett Bay in Which the Dashed Line Marks the Area
North of Which No Commercial Trawling is Permitted.
Figure 2-9. Menhaden Landings Over Time.
Figure 2-10. Map of Narragansett Bay Showing Density of Menhaden Larvae,
July 1972.
Figure 2-11. Rhode Island Landings of Menhaden, Bluefish and Striped Bass.

Chapter 3: Ports

Figure 3-1. Providence Harbor
Figure 3-2. Growth in Total Cargo Movement
Figure 3-3. Total Waterborne Commerce in Providence Harbor
Figure 3-4. Shipments and Receipts in Providence Harbor
Figure 3-5. Boundaries of Land Use Analyses Presented in Table'3-9.
Figure 3-6. Land Zoned For Industry in Providence Harbor.
Figure 3-7. Land Use Near Municipal Wharf.

Chapter 4: Recreation

Figure 4-1. Metropolitan Park System.
Figure 4-2. Parkland
Figure 4-3. Beaches
Figure 4-4. Recreational Boating.

Appendix A: Metropolitan Development and Estuarine Resources

Figure A-1. Upper Narragansett Bay
Figure A-2. Population of Upper Bay Communities
Figure A-3. Population of Upper Bay Communities
Figure A-4. Land Use Based on Municipal Zoning.

Figure A-5. Upper Narragansett Bay Census Tracts
Figure A-6. Median Family Income.
Figure A-7. Average Value of Owner Occupied Housing Units, 1970,
Figure A-8. Relationship of Family Income and Housing Values.
Figure A-9. Decline in Rhode Island Per Capita Income Compared to National
Average.
Figiire A-1.0. Two-Layered rstuarine Circulation.
Figure A-11. Seasonality of Freshwater Input to Narragansett Bay
Figure A-12. Shoreline Character.
Figure A-13. Major Tributaries and Basins of the Upper Narragansett Bay.
Figure A-14. Bullock Cove.
Figure A-15. Major Water Quality Classifications of Narragansett Bay.
Figure A-16. Location of Sewage Treatment Plants Discharging into Narragansett
Bay.
Figure A-17. Historical Trend in Discharge of Sewage Effluent.

List of Tables

Chapter 3: Ports

Table 3-1. Exports From All United States Ports
Table 3-2. National. Trends in Financing Port Development
Table 3-3. Historical Growth Rates of General and Dry Bulk Cargo Tonnage
Moving via New England Ports.
Table 3-4. Imports and Exports in New England by Customs Region of Shipment
and Receipt.
Table 3-5. Land Transportation of International Waterborne Commerce To and
From New England.
Table 3-6. Historical Cargo.Flows, Providence,,R.I.
Table 3-7. Traffic in Providence Harbor.
Table 3-8. Inbound Vessel Traffic in Providence Harbor.
Table 3-9. Land Use in Shoreline Census Tracts.
Table 3-10. Character of Industrially Zoned Land.

Chapter 4: Recreation

Table 4-1. Deficiencies in Recreation Opportunities Expressed By Total
Demand as a Percentage of Supply.
Table 4-2. Comparison of Recreation Spending in Northeastern States, FY 78.
Table 4-3. Comparison of Municipal Recreation Spending with National Averages
for Cities of Similar Size, FY 78.
Table 4-4. Parks and Open Space Along the Upper Narragansett Shore.
Table 4-5. Beaches.
Table 4-6. Recreational Boating.
Table 4-7. Projected East Bay Trips to Providence Year 2000.
Table 4-8. Sources of Debris.
Table 4-9. The Providence River and Harbor and the Seekonk River, R.I. Debris
Study.

Appendix A: Metropolitan Development and Estuarine Resources

Table A-1. Destination of Families Migrating From Providence 1950-1959.
Table A-2. Median Income in Upper Bay Census Tracts.
Table A-3. Low Income Families in Upper Bay Census Tracts.
Table A-4. Percentage of Rental Units of Upper Bay Census Tracts.
Table A-5 ' Average House Value of Upper Bay Census Tracts.
Table A-6. Employment Levels in R.I.
Table A-7. Shoreline Character Type.
Table A-8. Erosion by Waves in a Single Storm.
Table A-9. Municipal Sewage Discharges.

Introduction and -Summary

INTRODUCTION

Across the nation, the potential value of old commercial and residential
waterfronts to the success of urban renewal and redevelopment is gaining
increasing recognition. The traditional zoning based view that the indus-
trial waterfront is not suitable for other purposes is disappearing.
In many cities residential, commercial and recreational uses of the shore
have been integrated with revitalized port activities..

Concern for the Upper Narragansett Bay urban waterfront has been rising
over the past decade. India Point was transformed from a scrap metal
facility to a 12-acre municipal park in the 1970s after a major public
and private fund-raising effort. The frequent closure of the quahog
fishery in the Upper Bay has led to greater public concern about the opera-
tion of the Fields Point sewage treatment plant and the need for investments
to upgrade water quality. Non-petroleum cargo imports and exports have
increased at the Port of Providence, resulting in greater interest in port
development needs in Providence Harbor. Upper Bay communities such as
East Providence and Warwick have undertaken their own coastal planning
studies. In 1977 the Coastal Resources Management Council adopted a com-
prehensive set of policies for protecting the environmental quality of
the coastal zone. The program offers a major tool for addressing urban
waterfront issues. The Center for Ocean Management Studies at the
University of Rhode Island sponsored the conference:@@Pfr @arr@gansett__@@_X;
Decline or Revitalization? in July of 1979. During July 1980, Save The Bay
held a two-day workshop The Providence River: _Help Turn the Tide, which
dealt with environmental issues along the City of Providence waterfront.

This report was prepared for-the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management
Program to serve as a basis for discussion and action on a broad range
of urban estuary issues. The goal has been to explore the changing
relationship between people and natural systems in the Upper Bay and to
test some assumptions about its character, condition, and future. The
boundary of the Upper Bay as used in this text includes tidal waters from
Pawtucket to the northern tip of-Prudence Island. The inland reach of the
"Upper Bay" ranges from the Bay shoreline to include the two-state
Providence Metropolitan Area and the several municipalities that border
the Bay to the south (Figure 1-1). Such a broad definition of the social
and ecological features of the Upper Bay is necessary if we are to demon-
strate the regional significance.of the estuary and the need for coopera-
tive state and local management and redevelopment efforts.

Our exploration began with an effort to describe the principal social and
physical features of Upper Narragansett Bay within the context of the
Providence Metropolitan Area. This material is summarized below and is

Figure 1-1

UPPER NARRAGANSETT
BAY

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

--------------------- --------------------- L-T --------

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

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

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

further described in Appendix A of the report. Three major aspects of
human activities that are supported by the Upper Bay resources were
identified: the commercial fishery, the.port industry and recreation.
Issue papers have been prepared which describe the history, present prob-
lems and potential solutions for each topic. These are treated in the
remainingi chapters of this report.

THE URBAN ESTUARY

The upper portion of Narragansett Bay and the band of urban development
which surrounds it possesses a rich and diverse social and environmental
character. Altered by two centuries of economic activity and residential
development, the Upper Bay's waters are still productive and its shoreline
is still dominated by natural features.

The urban development which has both modified and been shaped by the
topography and physical forces at work in Upper Narraganset-t Bay began as
Providence's economy expanded and its population increased during the 19th
century. Farm land and summer colonies on the periphery of the area
became absorbed in a rapidly enlarging metropolis. The consequence of this.
economic and urban growth was an increase in the total wealth and popula-
tion of the region and a noticeable change in the character of the Upper
Bay environment. By the 1870s, complaints about pollution in the Providence
River and its tributaries were common, leading to the construction of the
Fields Point sewage treatment plant in 1890.

At the turn of the century when Providence possessed 40 percent of the
state's population, its influencepeaked. Providence attained its highest
population level in 1940. This was followed by a steady decline-as
surrounding municipalities saw rapid growth (Figure 1-2). Post-war
prosperity and deteriorating conditions within the city led to the present
patchwork of residential developments of different housing values, unit
ages, and social characteristics.

Most of the Upper Bay shore is dominated by, and zoned for, residential
use with the exception of Providence Harbor which is dominated by port-
related industry. The diversity of housing stock and neighborhoods may
be one of the Upper Bay's most important assets. An untapped resource
of older structures of historic value is interspersed throughout shore-
front communities. Deteriorated housing exists in isolated pockets rather
than dominating large areas.

Many of the coastline's natural features, particularly tributary streams
and coves, have remained intact and served as a natural barrier to
development. They now provide an important reservoir of open space to
many neighborhoods. However, these small estuaries require management and
protection--perhaps to a greater degree than their rural counterparts.
Storm water runoff laden with sediment and pollutants affects the water
quality of both streams and coves. Filling, dumping, and other encroach-
ments degraded the character of many of these places. However, with some
cooperative effort they can be revitalized and where they are now encroached
upon or neglected, they could be focal parts of green space in otherwise
crowded urban communities.

1000-

900-

800- actual or estimated
------- projected
0

700- rt

C'n 600-
C)
C) (D

z 500-
0
RHODE ISLAND 41
<
__J
400- (D
(D

300-
PROVIDENCE

200-
1001
C)
C)

0
C@ CD CD C) C1 C1 C)
C)
LO C) LO 00 C) LD co
00 CD 00 OD M CD M

Despite dramatic urban growth, the Upper Narragansett Bay remains.a valuable
ecological resource. The Upper Bay is a typical temperate estuary, a
coastal embayment in which seawater mixes with, and is measurably diluted
byl freshwater from land drainage. The Upper Bay isbest described as a
stratified system in which freshwater derived from riversq rain and runoff
flows out over heavier saltwater that moves up the Bay from the Sound
along the bottom. Superimposed on this basic pattern of two-layered flow
are currents driven principally by the wind and tides. Tidal flushing
is an important force in the Bay. It has been estimated that the tides
flush almost 250 times the volume of water.in and out of the Bay as does
the mean total river input (Kramer and Nixon, 1978). Tidal flushing, com-
bined with the intrusion of well oxygenated, relatively clean Bay water
well upstream into the Providence River, prevents the existance of much
worse water quality problems. The inflow of Bay water along the bottom is
probably a major reason why anoxic conditions are not more frequent and
wide-spread in the Providence and Seekonk Rivers (Olsen and Lee, 1979).

A striking characteristic of the Upper Bay as an estuary is its great
.variability. There are distinct seasonal variations in sunlight, tempera-
ture, river discharge and salinity. In the Upper Bay, average salinity
varies seasonally from about 18 to 27 parts per thousand and the annual
water temperature range is normally from 0-240C. Although rainfall is
fairly constant year round, there is a distinct seasonal pattern to river
discharge in wbich there is low flow in the summer and high flow the rest
of the year. In the summer, vegetation in the watershed transpires to
the atmosphere what would have otherwise been discharged to the Bay-
There are seasonal variations in the aquatic life in the Upper Bay which
accompany the changes in physical parameters. There is a seasonal succes-
sion of spawning.by organisms that inhabit the area as well as a seasonal
.pattern of migration of fish that move in and out of the Bay. Great
schools of menhaden come into the Bay from offshore waters in early spring
and leave in the fall. They are pursued by large numbers of bluefish
and striped bass.

Besides being a highly variable system, the Upper Bay is also a productive
one. Annual phytopla.nkton production for the Bay as a whole is estimated
to fix about 300 grams of carbon per square meter. The@secondary produc-
tion is also high (Furnas, et al., 1976). During spring and summer there
are abundant numbers of fish larvae that form a substantial portion of the
zooplankton'community. Dense quahog beds extend into the lower reaches of
the Providence River.

Marked spatial gradients in the bottom habitat extend down-Bay. Silt
clay sediments are the characteristic bottom type in the Upper Bay while
sands, are abundant in the lower Bay. There is a high proportion of organic
matter in the surface sediments due to organic particles flushed from
the sewage treatment plants, urban runoff, and phytoplankton cells sinking
to the bottom. Consequently there is a gradient down-Bay in which nutrients
and carbon content are much higher in the Providence River and Upper Bay
sediments than down-Bay. The communities of organisms that inhabit the
bottom of the Upper Bay are patchy in their distribution in response to
gradations of dissolved oxygen, organic content and sediment size.

The chronic discharge of inadequately treated sewage from the Fields Point
treatment plant, and pollutant inputs from rivers, storm sewers, and
other treatment plants have been the subject of heightened public concern.
The immediate-consequence has been the Department of Environmental
Management's frequent closure of Upper Bay shellfishing ground to commer-
cial fishermen, along with declining recreation and aesthetic appeal of
the water.

The environmental problems of the Upper Bay extend beyond water quality
to include shoreline debris, natural area protection, erosion and flooding.
ResolLitions to each of these.concerns require increased public commitment.

MAJOR ISSUES

In this report, each of the major issues selected for detailed discussion
represents an aspect of the physical character of the Upper Bay linked
with its social and economic context. Commercial fisheries, the port
industry,@and recreation all are important due to the presence and
character of Narragansett Bay. Water quality is a major issue in the
context of public concern about the well being of these important economic
and social activities.

Fisheries

The Upper Bay commercial fishery is an example of an important activity
supported by a biological resource that has changed radically over time.
A very large and lucrative managed oyster fishery flourished in the 1800s
but declined after the 1920s and disappeared by 1957. This fishery was
superseded by the present quahog fishery. However, the quahog fishery
is limited by persistent water pollution problems. The productive beds
in the lower Providence River have been closed,since the 1950s. The
permanent closure line has been moved south since then, with a.conditional
area between Warwick and Poppasquash Point. The conditional area is closed
for a week to ten days after a heavy rainfall when storm water overloads
flush sewage into the river and Upper Bay. The conditional area was not
open atall in 1979 due to failures in the Providence sewage treatment
plant. Progress must be made toward improving the quality of effluent
discharged from the Providence sewage treatment plant, as well as the
reduction of other sources of pollution, to increase the amount of time
the quahog fishery is open, and to have legal access to the soft shelled
@clams in the lower Providence River. Improved water quality may also
contribute to a return of the oyster fishery.

The Upper Bay also supports an important recreational finfishery although
little is known about Upper Bay finfish resources.or harvesting. However,
even the upper Providence River supports a surprisingly diverse population
of fish despite occasional low oxygen conditions. Increasing the physical
access to these resources is an important possibility.

The Port Industry

Providence Harbor includes the city-operated Port of Providence, several
private petroleum and bulk cargo terminals, as well as marine repair and
piloting services. Although petroleum traffic dominates port activity
as measured by tonnage, it grew only 24 percent between 1950 and 1977,
while bulk and general cargo increased 417 percent in the same 27-year
period. In 1977, of the ten major New England ports, Providence Harbor
ranked fourth in both total tonnage.and petroleum handled, but was second
only to Boston in non-petroleum commodities. Providence was first in
automobiles, lumber, and asphalt imports and scrap metal exports, and
second in cement, iron, and steel sheet and pipe handling. Providence
Harbor had the highest growth rate of any New England port for inbound
general.and dry bulk cargo between 1960 and 1977. The estimated annual
cargo handling capacity of the Municipal Wharf is 8.6 million tons, five
times its present use and twice that of the next largest terminal which
is in New Haven. Projections based on past performance indicate that general
and dry bulk cargo will double in the next twenty years.

The growth of the port industry during the 1970s has raised expectations
for its future contribution to the municipal and metro olitaneconomy.
Some of the ground work for achieving further growth in port activity is
already underway by the city and industry. However, the state must also
become involved by providing needed legislation, establishing a framework
for public and private sector cooperation in the harbor as a whole,
coordinating state planning, regulatory and economic development efforts,
and pursuing federal matching funds.

Recreation

Studies show that metropolitan Providence suffers a shortage of outdoor
recreation opportunities. Decades of suburban development in this century
stimulated by the economic success and population growth of Providence
and other cities has overtaken most of the agricultural and recreational
uses of the shore. Increasing shoreline access as well as protecting
remaining open space, and recreational facilities are essential for
enhancing the quality of the urban environment and keeping the now densely
developed shoreline a desirable place to live. Full and creative use of
publicly owned existing land and right s--of -way and conducting vigorous
efforts to assure public access in major private developments is particu-
larly important in Rhode Island, which ranks 42d of 50 states in state
and local spending for parks and recreation.

THE NEED FOR LEADERSHIP

A crucial lesson of the national experience in urban waterfront revitaliza-
tion is that the revival process cannot occur unassisted, and that a
partnership between public and private sectors is essential. John Ames,
Director of the Boston Harbor Associates, and an advocate of harbor
redevelopment, stated at the Upper Narragansett Bay Conference in July
1979, "The feeling of tribal feudalism that dominates some of the decision-
makingin Boston Harbor is a wonder to behold. I suspect if you are at

all. sliid.lar to Boston polittcalty, and 1. have every reason to believe you
are, that feeling of tribal feudalisin between public agencies exists
in Rhode Island as well." The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
is taking the lead on waterfront redevelopment in the two-state New York
inner harbor. It has adopted a strategy based on two roles, first as
11active developer" of physical projects in conjunction with municipalities
and secondly to "advocate, organize and energize" the redevelopment
efforts of others. The authors of the Baltimore Metropolitan Coastal Area
Study (1978) observe that "over the years, the coastal environment has
deteriorated and has not been adequately managed.because of a complicated
and difficult to understand decision-making process, the sheer number of
affected interests and responsible authorities, and an inability to
reconcile differing values and roles into an effective resolution." The
absence of an oraanized mechanism to catalyse awareness, attract
resources and advocate metropolitan solutions to regional coastal problems
continues to be a major concern. "The (Chesapeake) Bay functions as a
unit and so must we. Interjurisdictional cooperation and the attention
of state and federal agencies is essential."

In the decade of the 1980s high energy costs and mortgage interest rates
and a less expansive economy are changing the conditions which influence
individual decisions about where to live and how often to move. It is
unlikely that the deep appreciation of local geography, culture, and
history which characterized the attitudes of earlier generations of Rhode
Islanders*will suddenly reappear in the Upper Bay communities. However,
there is a clear need for a reexamination of both the heavy subsidies pro-
vided to development at the urban fringe, and the true costs of a failure
to correctly value and manage urban resources. The consequences of
continued neglect can be avoided by taking needed steps now while choices
still exist.

This report is a culmination of a one year project that ended in June 1980
that was undertaken by the Coastal Resources, Center for the Governor's
Office with funding from the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management
Program. The goal of the project was to identify,and describe the major
urban waterfront issues which affect the quality of the.Upper Narragansett
Bay environment and to identify ways in which those concerns can be
addressed by the state. The results of the assessment presented here has
led to a second year of work where the Center will work with appropriate
agencies of state government, particularly the Governors Office and Coastal
Resources Management Council and assist them in taking action on specific
issues including dredging, debris removal, and waterfront improvements.

We hope that this report will stimulate greater public interest in working
toward a brighter future for Upper Narragansett Bay in terms of improved
environmental quality, economic activity and public enjoyment.

REFERENCES

Furnas, M., G. Hitchcock, and T. Smayda. 1976. Nutrient-phytoplankton
Relationships in Narragansett Bay During the 1974 Summer Bloom.
In Estuarine Processes Vol. I, Academic Press, New York. pp. 118-133.

Interagency Task Force and Technical Committee, Harford, Baltimore, Anne
Arundel Counties and City of Baltimore. 1978. Baltimore Metropolitan
Coastal Area Study: An Agenda For Action.

Kremer, J. and S. Nixon. 1978. A Coastal Marine Ecosystem. Springer-
Verlag. New York. 217 pp.

Olsen, S. and V. Lee. 1979. A Summary and Preliminary Evaluations of.
Data Pertaining to the Water Quality of Upper Narragansett Bay.
Coastal Resources Center. 189 pp.

Fisheries

INTRODUCTION

Fisheries have always been one of t he most important of man's activities
in Upper Narragansett Bay. Early records from the 1600's des 'cribe large
anadromous fish runs, extensive soft shell clam beds and oyster bars, and
finfishing by seines, fyke nets and fish traps. A century ago, a managed
oyster fishery flourished in the Upper Bay that yielded millions of
pounds of oysters and employed several thousand people in harvesting, pro-
cessing, and shipping. Shellfishing and finfishing are still important
activities in the Upper Bay, though the species sought have changed. Now,
over a thousand people rely on quahoging for some portion of their income
and there are hundreds of sportfishermen that look to the Upper Bay as a
prime source of recreation. However, the present fisheries of the
Upper Bay seem to be suffering because of deteriorating water quality.
Fish stocks are not as high as they once were and some of the most produc-
tive quahog beds in the Upper Bay have been permanently closed because of
pollution. In addition, a "conditional area" incorporating the rest of the
Upper Bay has been closed for increasing proportions of the past several
years and all of 1979, primarily because of malfunctidns at the Fields
Point sewage treatment plant.

in order to asse*ss the present status and possible options for revitali-
zation of the Upper Bay fisheries, this chapter examines historical trends
to ascertain whether fisheries have truly declined and note the,probable
causes. Recent data is summarized to estimate the present stock of finfish
and shellfish. Also included is a discussion of the role of overfishing,
pollution, and government regulations in limiting the fishery of the Upper
Bay. Suggestions for revitalization are listed in the summary.

SHELLFISHING IN THE UPPER BAY

The Upper Bay provides a particularly hospitable environment for shellfishing
since it is a tidal estuary of moderate depth with extensive shallow
stretches of level bottom comprised primarily of sandy silt. The
Providence River covers an area of about 5,000 acres with an average depth
of 14 ft. and the Upper Bay covers an area of 11,000 acres with an average
depth of 24 ft. (Kremer and Nixon, 1978). Nutrients from land drainage
and sewageflow into the Upper Bay and support abundant crops of phytoplank-
ton, a rich food supply for the filter feeding,shellfish. At present the
major shellfishing effort is for quahogs. Quahogs, or hard shell clams,
are the most important commercial shellfish in Narragansett Bay, and the
upper Bay harbors some of the most productive quahog beds in all of
Narragansett Bay. Soft shell clams are less abundant than quahogs in the
Upper Bay since they are found in siltier sediments but they are distributed

,both intertidally and subtidally in patches throughout the Upper Bay and
Providence River. Conchs also support a small fishery in the Upper Bay.

Historical Pers ective on Major Shelifisheries in the Upper Bay

ShellfisMng is one of the oldest and most continuous uses of the Upper Bay.
The native Indian population relied on shellfish as a major source of food
and fashioned quahog shells into Wampum. Goode (1887) gives an excellent
description of early fisheries in the Bay. He mentions that the Indians
were reportedly angered by the colonists' hogs fattening themselves on shell
fish beds at low tide, since the soft shell clam and oyster beds that
lined the Seekonk and Providence Rivers were to them a valuable food source.
However, the colonists also relied on these resources. In 1639, when a
famine was imminent, a general assembly of freemen voted that all water
below sea level was declared free for fishing. In the 1683 charter from
England establishing the Providence Plantations, the right of free fishing
was guaranteed to every citizen. The right of free and common fisheries
for the public benefit still is jealously guarded by Rhode Islanders.
In the late 1700s laws were passed prohibiting the dredging of oysters
for use as lime. The oyster fishery was to be conserved as a source of
food with access for everyone rather than usurped by one industry.

Oysters

In colonial times, the Upper Bay produced exceptionally abundant oysters.
Schooners from Welfleet, Massachusetts used to get seed from Narragansett
Bay to transplant on their beds. But by 1887, Goode reported in his
survey of U.S. fisheries that, "little remains of the natural wealth of
oysters upon which the early planters half a century ago could draw to
what seemed an unlimited extent." Good natural oyster beds at one time
covered the entire upper half of the Providence River extending into the
cove next to the railroad station. One of the best beds, known as Great
Bed, covered 160 acres south of Fields Point. The Seekonk River produced
good oysters regularly even through the 1800s.

During the 1800s, most of the natural oyster fishery was replaced by a
flourishing oyster culture industry in the Bay, in which the seed had
to be imported from other states. Starting in 1844, sections of the Bay
bottom were leased for oyster growing. As many as half a million bushels
of seed were transported annually from Long Island or other-coastal embay-
ments in southern New England, and later from the Chesapeake Bay when local
seed stocks ran out because of overfishing (Goode 1887).

According to Goode, local seed were planted on the best beds and imported
seed placed on beds in the rest of the Bay. The best beds were considered
to be those off Fields Point, Pawtuxet Cove, Gaspee Point, Conimicut Point,
Nayatt Point, Rumstick Point, the Warren,'Barrington and Kickamuit Rivers.
Bullocks Cove was known to,be the very best place to plant oysters in the
whole state,because of the many freshwater springs along the bottom. The
rest of the Bay was planted with imported "Chesapeakes." There was a regu-
lar coastal trade in oyster seed which were brought up from the Chesapeake

to beds in New England. Oysters came to Narragansett Bay from the James
River, and the seed was set out on oyster shell clutch on the Bay bottom
in April and May. Several years later they were harvested as mature Oysters.
Narragansett Bay oysters were famous for their exquisite flavor and were
shipped to markets and restaurants all through New England and Canada. In
1880 over 1,000 acres were leased and oysters made up more than half the
total value of all fisheries in Rhode Island. By 1892 oyster grounds
were leased all the way up the Providence River and into the Seekonk River
(Fig. 2-1). Some of the most prized and productive beds were on Starvegoat
Island, an oyster bar now covered by fill at Fields Point. The industry
peaked in 1910 with 20,000 acres leased which brought $106,839 in fees into
the state's treasury. Nearly 1,500 people were employed in the industry
and 1.5.3 million pounds of oyster meats were landed that year (Alexander,
1,966). Subsequently, the fishery declined through the 1930s as seed
became more expensive to import and the industry moved south to the
Chesapeake (Fig. 2-2). The last oyster business in the Bay closed its doors
in 19.57.

Now there are virtually no oysters havested from the Upper Bay. Many
reasons are given for the loss of the fishery, including pollution, star-
fish predation, overfishing of seed beds, hurricane destruction, and
poaching. It appears that the decline started long before the hurricane
of 1938 and although it may have contributed to the decline it was certainly
not the cause. Starfish predation is no longer considered to have been
an important factor. Pollution may have damaged the health and marketability
of oysters in the Providence River and Upper Bay, but it is unlikely to
have ruined the oysters in the West Passage. The major reason for the
decline Of the industry was probably the increasing scarcity and expense
of seed stock and the management problems that led to widespread poaching.
Unlike today, oysters were a staple of the common man. Travellers, city
dwellers, even gold miners out West all relied on live or canned oysters
that were stewed, fried, and frittered. The market and industry outstripped
the supply. The seed source gradually moved from Cape Cod to Narragansett
Bay to Long Island to Chesapeake Bay, and the industry followed.

Soft Shell Clams

The soft shell clam fishery in the Upper Bay and Providence River has also
been extensive. Good reported in 1887 that this was a fishery for the poor
who dug them in the winter along both sides of the Providence River south
of Fields Point. At that time an estimated 85,000 bushels were dug in a
year from the Upper Bay and Providence River and shipped to New York, where
they were sold for bait in the offshore mackerel and cod fishery. The varia-
tion over time in the Rhode Island landings of softshells can be seen in
(Fig. 2-3).The Rhode'Island catches have declined markedly since 1949,
when 634,000 pounds were landed: Last year total Rhode Island commercial
landings amounted to only 8,200 lbs. Although abundances are quite high in
the Upper Bay (R. Sisson pers. comm.), the area is closed to softshell
fishing due to pollution.
kt@a

Since the demise of the oyster industry in the 1900s, quahoging has been
the most important shellfishery in the Upper Bay (Fig. 2-2). According
to Rhode Island landings, the quahog fishery for the entire state peaked

OYSTER
N
MLEASED
GROUNDS
PROVIDENCE
1914

0 5 10 km

Figum 2=1, L@99@d oygt@r ground@ ifi N&vfag&tg@tt Bay, 1914,
From L, Al@xand@r, 1966, NAffAgAftA@tt Bayi A Marin@ U�@ P-fofil@,

z 15000-
OYSTERS
0
a. HARD CLAMS
U- 10000- POT LOBSTERS
0
SCALLOPS
W
z 5000-

Cf)
D
0

1000
Cn N
goo
ftft "ft. *0
*9 0. 0 0
.0 .4 If, .0
0 !, -
1880 190 1900 '10 '20 '30 140 '50 '60

Figure 2-2. Shellfish Catch 1800-to 1960
Narragansett Bay
From: L. Alexander, 1966.

tip)

z SOFT SHEL L CLAMS
::3 600-
0

400-
U)

z
< Ln
(1) 200-

F-
0
1880 '85 195 1905 '25 '45 '65 '80
YEALR

Figure 2-3. Trend in softshell clam landings from Rhode Tsland Coastal Waters.

Olsen and Stevenson, 1975.

at 5 million pounds of meats in 1955 (Fig. 2-4)'
. In the early days they
were harvested by both dredge and hand rake. Dredge boats drag a metal
dredge behind the boat that digs into the bottom and scoops up the
quahogs. Although dredgin fficient.than hand raking, the
g is more e more
ntimerous hand rakers have succeeded since the 1950s in barring dredging
from the Bay. Dredging is now permitted by law only in the Sakonnet River
and only at the discretion of the Director of the Department of Environmental
Management.

Status of the Present Fishi@@ry

At present, quahoging is the largest commercial fishery in the Bay. Although
Much smaller than catches in the 1950s, commercial landings have increased
during the last four years (Fig. 2-4). In 1978 nearly two million pounds
(meat weight) worth $4.3 million (ex-vessel) were reported as landed in
Rhode Island. The Rhode Island landing statistics usually underestimate the
catch because a portion of the fish and shellfish caught and sold are
never reported to the National Marine Fisheries Service. However, these
are the only available numbers to compare year to year trends in catch.

Most of the quahog catch is taken from Narragansett Bay by hand rakers.
Hand rakers fish with tongs or a bullrake on the end of a long pole operated
from small open skiffs. Tongers work waters up to 20 feet deep while
rakers can work up to 50 feet deep with the long aluminum poles. Last
year there were an estimated 300 full-time quahogers and an additional
1,600 part-timers who supplement their regular income by quahoging weekends
or during the summer (R.I. DEM). The summertime recreational fishery
exerts.a fairly minor pressure on the resource, since recreational fishermen
do not usually invest in a boat and raking equipment. Instead, they work
the shallow waters nearshore and are content with a much smaller catch
(the legal limit is 1/2 bushel per day). Commercial handrakers are
restricted to a legal limit of 12 bushels of quahogs per day. The average
quahoger, however, does not fish his limit in bushels, but rather decides
on the monetary need for the day and -fishes until he has it, usually $100
to $300. The smaller clams are the most sought after since they bring the
better price. The catch is divided into three size categories: littlenecks,
1 1/2" - 2 1/8"; cherry stones, 2 1/8" - 2 1/2"; chowders, greater than
2 1/2" (measured from the hinge to the shell margin). The 1979 ex-vessel
prices offered per pound were as follows; 80@ for little necks, 15( for
cherry stones, and lft, for chowders. As the size decreases, the market
value is greater because the small clams are prized for serving raw on the
half shell.

Due to good sets and increasing prices, the numbers of licensed quahogers
have increased over the last few years (Fig. 2-5). As a result of this
increased effort, the catch in Rhode Island has been increasing steadily,
even though the beds in the Upper Bay have been closed. In 1978, R.I..
landings were 10% of the U.S. harvest.

.17

5.4
(n
QUAHOGS
z

0
3-6-

(n
Z
0

1905 '25 '45 '65 85
YEAR

Figure 2-4. Trend in Rhode Island Commercial Landings for Quahogs.
Note that the landings picked up in the 1930s as the oyster
catch declined (see Figure 2-3) and that they are increasing
in recent years from a low point in the early 1970s.

cn
W
in
z
w 1200

0 1000
X

800

_j
600
V
Cr. 0
W
2 400- 0. 0
0 oe
HAND -RAKERS WITH BOAT
LL
0 20.0 7 -o-, OTHER (Students, Over 65,
cn W/O Boat)

W
Ca 0
2 .1973 '74 75 '76 '77 '78 79 80
M
z YEAR

Figure 2-5. Recent trend in the numbers of commercial quahog
licenses issued to Rhod'e Islanders. The numbers of hand
rakers with boats is steadily increasing since 1973. The
numbers for 1979-1980 are preliminary. They are totals
for the first half of the year (as of January 1980) and
expected to increase this spring and summer with the advent
of good weather and summer vacations.

Distribution in tl@@ Ba
y. Quahogs are abiindantly distributed over the bottom
of Narragansett Bay, particularly in the West Passage, Greenwich Bay, the
Upper Bay and the edges of the Providence River. They feed_on phytoplankton
which they filter from the water as they pump it in through their siphon
tubes and over their gills. They spawn in the summer from mid June to
mid August, when water temperatures rise above 600F. A female releases
a total of about 2 million eggs each season which metamorphose into planktonic
larvae that are suspended in the water 10 to 12 days before settling on the
bottom.

It is well known that some of the best qUahog beds are located in the Upper
Bay and lower Providence River. It is, however, difficult to estimate the
size of the population, or what su8uilnable yield could be fished. In the
most recent survey of the quahog stock completed by the R.I. DEM in 1978,
in which 12 stations were sampled on both sides of the lower Providence
River (north of Conimicut Point, sotith of Gaspee Point), cherrystones
and littlenecks were found in surprising abundances. No chowder sized
clams were found. -In a 1975 survey in the same area, abundant numbers
were also found, but a few chowder sized clams were present in addition
to the large proportion of cherries and necks. Earlier surveys provided
varying estimates of the quahog population in the Upper Bay and Providence
River. The density on each side of the channel in the lower Providence
River (between Conimicut Point and Gaspee Point) has been estimated at
166 bu/per acre in 1956, (Stringer, 1956) at 346 bu/per acre in 1965
(Saila, 1965). and at approximately 42 bu/per acre for the Upper Bay and
lower Providence River in 1974 (Sisson, 1974). However, the equipment
and survey methods differ so much that it is not appropriate to surmise
changes in actual abundance from these data. The surveys do indicate that
there is presently an abundant.population of the smaller quahogs which
are the sizes most valuable for marketing. They are also the sizes in which
most of the reproduction occurs, and therefore mostvaluable in terms of
maintaining a fishable stock.,

Pollution Effects on the Quahog_.Ei@rX. Many of the prime quahog beds
have been permanently or conditionally eliminated from the fishery because
of pollution in the Providence River from industrial discharges, storm
sewer outfalls and sewage treatment plant-effluents. Over 5,600 acres of
the Providence River north of Conimitut Point are now permanently closed to
shellfishing and an additional 9,400 acres of the Upper Bay are conditionally
closed. During recent years, the conditional area has been closed for
increasingly long periods of time due to equipment failures at the Fields
Point sewage treatment plant (Figure 2-6 ). According to a DEM report
(Sisson, 1976), areas in the lower Providence River and conditional areas
of the Upper Bay that are presently closed to shellfishing could produce
an annual harvest of about 6 million pounds, worth some $1.5 million
(ex-vessel) (1979 prices). Using a multiplier of 2.76 for R.I.
quahoging (Callaghan and Comerford, 1979), this harvest could contribute
about $4 million annually to the state's.economy through direct, indirect
and induced multiplier effects.

Government Policies and Reg_ulatiorj@,. The Rhode Island Department of Environ-
mental Management sets water quality standards primarily on the basis of
coliform. bacteria counts and dissolved oxygen levels. In Class SA waters
(salt water in which shellfishing and bathing are permitted) coliform

100

Cr
4
w 80-

Cr
w
0-
w 60-
Cr
D
Cn
0
40

Z
w

Cr 20
w
CL

01
1972 '73 '74 '75 '76 '77 '78

Figure 2-6. Percent of any given year that Upper
Narragansett Bay shellfish beds are closed by R.I.
Department of Health, usually as a result of heavy
rainfall. Summarized from R.I. DEM.

levels must not exceed a median most probable number (MPN) of 70 per 100 ml
of water. SB waters-may be used for bathing and for shellfishing after
depuration. Coliform levels in this water must not exceed a median MPN of
700/100 ml. Class SC is suitable for fish and wildlife habitat, recreational
boating and industrial processes and no coliform levels'are specified.
Because of high coliform levels and low oxygen concentrations, the
Providence River is less than SA, and is classified SC for much of the
northern section. Consequently, the Providence River north of Conimicut
Point has been permanently closed to commercial shellfishing since the 1950s.
Since commercial shellfish are marketed out of state, the DEM establishes
the closure boundaries in consultation with Federal FDA officials whose
mission is to protect public health rather than manage the environment.
As a result, the areas closed to shellfishing include a conservative
safety margin. For instance, beds are closed on the basis of coliform
counts taken from samples of surface water. In the Providence River, the
surface waters have much higher concentrations than bottom waters oftthan
the quahogs themselves. In 1966, Dr. Andreas Holmsen of URI did a study of
the practicality of quahog depuration. Quahogs contaminated with high
levels of coliform in need of depuration could not be found for experimenta-
tion in the Upper Bay during the non-summer seasons. Nonetheless, the area
is closed to shellfishing. The permanently closed area was extended down
Bay in early 1980 (Figure 2-7).

In addition to the permanently closed area, the state conditionally
closes the entire Upper Bay, approximately 10,000 acres of prime quahog
beds, after a heavy rain (Figure 2-7). Theconditional area is closed
from 7 to 10 days following 1/2 inch or more of rain in 24 hours in the
Providence area because the treatment plant cannot treat the excess volume
of storm water. During high storm runoff, bypass valves are opened that
shunt storm water and sewage directly into the river.I As a result, surface
waters of the Upper Bay become contaminated with coliform. bacteria above
levels set by Federal standards for shellfishing areas.

Besides regulations that are set by coliform. concentrations, there are FDA
standards set for mercury and some pesticides, PCBs (2.5 ppm) and kepone
(.1 ppm). Concentrations in quahogs harvested from the Upper Bay and lower
Providence River are below these standards. Since metals are concentrated
in sediments and accumulated in organisms to greater concentrations than
they are found in the water, they may constitute a health hazard even
though concentrations in-the water are relatively low. With this in mind,
the Federal Food and Drug Administration has set "alert" levels for quahog
tissue as a forewarning to public health officials to check an area more
thoroughly if such levels should occur. These levels are not legally
binding but serve as a warning mechanism. Although metals are found in
high concentrations in clams taken from the Upper Bay than in those father
down Bayj concentrations are well below the alert levels, with an occasional
exception of high copper and chromium levels in clams in the Providence
River. High concentrations of oil have been found in clams from the Upper
Bay (Farrington 1971, Boehm 1977).
It may well be that government regulations closing shellfish beds on the
basis of coliform. concentrations in surface waters are too restrictive
Rarely do fecal coliform levels in the quahogs in the Upper Bay and lower

PERMANENTLY
CLOSED AREA
PROVIDENCE
AS OF 980
C= CONDITIONAL AREA
0 5 io km

. . . . ..... ..

Figure 2-7. Map of Narragansett Bay showing the area of the Upper Bay
and Providence River permanently closed to shellfishing because of
coliform pollution. Below it is the "conditional area" which covers
the rest of the Upper Bay and is closed after a heavy rainfall (1/2"
in 24 hrs.) in Providence because storm runoff overloads the sewage
treatment plants which discharge into the Providence River.

Providence River exceed FDA market standards. If.closures were based on
routine bottom water sampling or shellfish meat sampling they would be more
indicative of the actual state of the resource. As a result, more of the
most productive beds in the Bay might be safely opened to fishing.

FINFISH IN THE UPPER BAY

At present the Upper Bay finfishery is primarily recreational. Thousands
of pounds of bluefish, striped bass, and blackback flounder are caught in
the Upper Bay by hook and line from small boats and from the shore. Much
of Rhode Island landings for striped bass and bluefish are caught by sport-
fishermen. With the exception of a small amount of menhaden seining,
there is virtually no commercial finfishing in the Upper Bay. Draggers
are legally restricted by DEM to fish south of Prudence Island.
Anadromous fish tuns which were once an important fishery in the tributaries
to the Upper Bay and Providence River have dwindled to almost nothing.
The state is trying to revitalize the fishery with a restocking and fish
ladder construction program. Finfish data pertaining to the Upper Bay or
Providence River are very sparse. Few surveys have been done in the area,
so it is difficult to assess the size of the fish stocks or the effects of
pollution or overfishing.

HistorLc@ak Per_@@pf ct@

Although there is no complete historical record of fish caught in Narragansett
Bay, or more particularly in the Upper Bay and Providence River, it appears
that fish and shellfish populations have been much more abundant than@they
are today. Scattered information since the colonial period suggests that
increasing pollution together with expanding fishing effort and more
efficient technology were the major causes for the shrinking abundance and
variety of fish in the Upper Bay.

In colonial times, anadromous fisheries in the rivers'that flow into the
Upper Bay were particularly important. Alewives and smelt were seasonally
abundant and there were shad, salmon and sturgeon, as w.ell. Goode (1887)
reports that in the early 1700s laws were passed forbidding erection of dams
or weirs on any stream that would hinder the passage of fish and forbade
fishing for three days a week except.by hook and line. However, the state
government considered industrialization more beneficial to the public good
than fishing, so more and more,mills and dye works and processing plants
constructed dams and discharged wastes into the rivers. By the 1790s it
was noted that there was a decrease in the amount of migratory fish in
Upper Bay rivers due to increases in mill sites. Goode reports that by
the late 1800s, Warren was the northern limit of fishing in the.Bay due
to increased industrialization and factory pollution. BEFlow Warren, alewives,
shad, and scup were common in the spring. They were followed later in the
season by squeteague, tautog, flounder, bluefish and eels, These species
were fished by gill nets, fyke nets, fish traps and eel pots. In 1880 there
were five fish traps on the Warren River for shad, three scallop boats,
18 dredges, and 10 clam boats, which landed an estimated 5,000 shad, 2,500
bushels of clams and 1,000 gallons of scallops. At that time, seventy-five
men were employed clamming or scalloping or net fishing most of the year
off Pawtuxet.

The floating or staked fish trap dominated fishing efforts in the Bay in
the early 1900s. The traditional net and hook and line fishermen were
driven out of business because the traps drastically reduced the abundance
of fish in the Bay. These nets were very efficient and intercepted schools
of fish as they passed along the shore during spring and fall migration.
In 1910,there were nearly 400 fish traps in Rhode Island. Concern for
declining fish stocks led to restrictions of where and when traps could be
.used. By 1964 most of the Bay was closed to trap fishing and there were
only 24 traps in the state landing 8,843,000 lbs. of fish, 24 percent of the
total Rhode Island landings (Holmsen, 1973). Today there are only a few
floating traps operating off the south shore and Sakonnet River that catch
only a few percent of the fish landed in the state.

More recently, heavy fishing offshore by U.S. and foreign fleets has
decreased Bay fish stock even further. Only half a dozen or so boats
trawl for ground fish and there is considerable lobstering but these occur
only in the lower Bay.

Status of the Present Fishery

Commercial finfishing is virtually non-existent in the Upper Bay and
Providence River, with the exception of a small amount of seasonal menhaden
seining. There are only four or five draggers presently working the Bay,
primarily for blackback flounder. They are restricted to the lower Bay
by DEM regulations (See Figure 2-$). Fishing by gillnets, fyke nets and
drift nets is permitted in the Upper Bay, but the catch is not of commercial
significance.

Menhaden

Purse seining by menhaden boats is permitted in the Upper Bay and Providence
River south of Sabin Point. In recent years there have been only two
Rhode Island registered menhaden boats seining in the Bay. If the catch
is good they are joined briefly by as many as five vessels from New Jersey
each of which catch two to three times as much as the local boats.
However, the catches of the Jersey boats do not show up in Rhode Island
landing statistics. Each of the local boats has a crew of 12 to 15 men
and they usually fish the Bay from the first week in June until October.
In the past few years, these boats have landed 10 to 20 million pounds of
menhaden each summer in Rhode Island. Since the fish are processed into
oil or chicken feed, this enormous,volume of fish is not very valuable
and yields only $200-$300,000 at the dock.

Adult menhaden usually move into the Upper Bay to spawn in April. By
May, surface schools have formed which are easily visible and harvestable.
In June the largest catches are taken from the Upper Bay, then the popula-
tion disperses to the lower Bay, and most leave the Bay by early fall to
begin their southern migration. Menhaden usually spend their first year
in the Chesapeake, their second in coastal New Jersey and New York, and
their third and fourth years as far north as Narragansett Bay. Since Rhode
Island is on the northern edge of their range and there is heavy fishing

//FISH MONITERING
GOOD TRAWL
GROUNDS
PROVIDENCE --NORTHERN
TRAWLING LIMIT

0 5 10 km

00,

Figure 2-8. Map of Narragansett Bay in which the dashed line marks
the area north of which no co=aercial trawling is permitted. The
traditionally good trawl grounds that lie north of 'the line are
marked by arrows. The cross hatched area marks the area routinely
trawled by DEM to monitor for fish in the Upper Bay.

south of here, abundances and catch fluctuate strongly year to year. As
can be seen in Figure 2- 9, in good years 20 million pounds may be landed
and in bad years, none., Although they are fished throughout the Bay and
offshore, the Upper Bay appears to be the most important spawning area.
Menhaden larvae are found in great abundance here and in Mount Hope Bay
(Figure 2-10). The Bay is considered to once have been an important spawning
site for the northeast menhaden stock. It may well be that poor water
quality in the Upper Bay is toxic to the pelagic eggs and larvae and that
this may have damaged menhaden stocks.

There is strong and apparently unjustified animosity between sp ortfishermen
and menhaden fishermen in the Bay, to such an extent that the sportfishermen
tried to close the entire Bay north of the Jamestown and Newport bridges to
menhaden seining. The sportfishermen contend that menhaden are a vital
food source for bluefish and striped bass, the major sportfish in the Bay.
Since the menhaden seiners drastically deplete this baitfish stock sport-
fishermen believe the bass and bluefish must decline in the Bay as a conse-
quence. However, there has never been any conclusive evidence that sport-
fish depend on menhaden. On the contrary, since 1945, bluefish and striper
landings have steadily increased an d show no correlation with the wide
fluctuations in menhaden landings. The mid 1960s were particularly bad
menhaden years, yet bluefish and bass landings did not decline. In fact,
when menhaden landings were very high in the mid 1950s bluefish and striped
bass were comparatively low (Figure 2-11). In a study by Oviatt (1977) on
the relationship of the menhaden to their predators, it was found that
striped bass and bluefish feed on a variety of bait fish in the Bay, but
primarily on menhaden and sand lance. However, it appears that even when
menhaden abundances are so low that it is no longer commercially viable to
catch them, they are still abundant enough to be an important food source
for their predators.

.�22E-t f lis ti

The finfishery in the Upper Bay is predominately recreational and dominated
by striped bass and bluefish fishing. They are taken primarily by hook and
line from small boats in the summer and early fall when they migrate into
the Bay. They are also fished from bridges, wharves, or almost anywhere
that fishermen can get access to the water. Tautog and blackback flounder
are also important sportfish. However, there are no annual stati�tics
available on the catches of recreational fishermen for the Bay as a whole
or for the Upper Bay. In one study by Oviatt in 1977, buyer's records indi-
cated that the greatest statewide landings for striped bass occur in June
and July and from July to October for bluefish. Striped bass apparently
follow the menhaden schools north, arriving in the Bay in May, and then
leave in mid summer when the bluefish become most abundant. The Oviatt
study estimates a total Bay catch for 1976 of 474,000 lbs. of striped
bass and 397,000 lbs. of bluefish, most of it recreational. Oviatt calcu-
lated that this amounts to harvesting 65 percent of the total Bay population
of.bluefish and 26 percent of the Bay population of striped bass.

140-

120-

100--

44 80-

0 60-

40-

20-

1880 1885 1895 1905 1915 1925 1935 1945 1955 1965 1975

Figure 2-9. Menhaden landings over time.

Olsen and Stevenson, 1975.

3
s per IOOM
10,000
PROVIDENCE 0 100
10
0 5 io krn

0
00

0.
0 0
0
0
0
0
0 ..... .
0 0
0
0

0
0
0 PO

Figure 2-10. Map of Narragansett Bay showing density of menhaden
larvae, July 1972. Note that greatest densities are in the Upper
Bay and Mount Hope Bay, Adapted from Matthiessen 1973.

(IQ

F- POUNDS LANDED PER YEAR

w 0 0
co 11 rt 0 CA
V) CL
M
@_4 rt Cn CD
Id @J' --I r- m
0 D) U) MCZ
rL 0 rt F- tr ::6 M X
(D 0@ 5. 03 0 rn -n
H. CA
@3 x rri
OQ (D
0 F- CD Z

?l (D rt Cl)
10 ti M @A. Ul
:7,m

11 (D :j
0 (n @r
D) t-h m
CL
(D

Fl- rt

rt M
rt (D rL
(D

0
(D ct cr

0
@-h Fl-

t-I ct
(D rt D,
J-h -4
H- c" F
vi

rt 0 CL

In the most recent creel census survey made of the sportfish catch in Rhode
Island (McConnell and Smith, 1978), there were an estimated 61,132 bluefish,
79,000 striped bass and 101,506 winter flounder caught in the Upper Bay.
These numbers can be converted to approximately 470,438 lbs., 1,081,750 lbs.,
and 136,530 lbs., respectively. This would indicate that 37 percent of the
bluefish and 33 percent of the blackback flounder and 99 percent of the
striped bass caught by sportfishermen in Narragansett Bay are caught in the
Upper Bay.

The sportfishery is obviously very important in the Upper Bay. A 1978
telephone survey by NMFS indicated that 10 percent of total Rhode Island
households participated in summertime sportfishing throughout the state.
Close to 300,000 salt water fishing trips were made by Rhode Islanders
in a year, catching a total of 1.2 million fish (McConnell et al. 1978).
A significant amount was taken from the Upper Bay.

Government Policies and Regulations

A combination of depleted stocks and government regulation has virtually
eliminated commercial fishing from the Upper Bay. Trawling and fish traps
are prohibited from the area. It is generally considered that fish ' stocks
are not sufficient to support commercial fishing. Even in the trapping hey-
day, there were very few fish traps located here compared to the rest of
the Bay. Menhaden seining is permitted in the Upper Bay and river up to
Sabin Point, excluding the mouth of the Warren River. But.again, the
supply only supports two Rhode Island boats and is highly variable year to
year. As previously mentioned, fishing by fyke nets, seines, drift nets
and hook and line are all permitted.

The State Department of Environmental Management maintains a Iprogram to
revitalize the anadromous fisheries. In the 1960s they stocked streams
around the Bay with alewives and the 1970s were good years for alewife
runs. The DEM has installed a series of fish ladders in many locations
where dams blocked migration around the state. Future construction of
fishways are proposed for the Upper Bay at Gorton Pond, Warwick; Hunts
River, East Greenwich; Seekonk and Ten MileRiver, East Providence; and
Brickyard Pond, Barrington; there are existing fish runs in the Warren
River, Palmer River and Barrington River, as well as other Rivers in the
lower Bay and Sakonnet Passage. As a result of these efforts it appears
that the buckie runs have stabilized. They are not up to the carrying
capacity of the rivers, but at least the populations are no longer
declining. Buckies are an important bait fish and are pursued by striped
bass and bluefish throughout the Bay up to the mouths of these rivers.
Continued efforts to remove obstructions from tributaries to the Upper Bay
and to keep the runs stocked -may contribute significantly to keeping sport-
fish in the Upper Bay.

Pollution Effects on the Finfishery

It is more difficult to assess the effects of pollution on the finfishery
than the quahog fishery since fish are not regularly monitored for contami-
nants. There is a prodigious literature documenting the.toxic effects of
various trace metals, pesticides and solvents on eggs, larvae and adult

life stages of different types of fish. There are elevated levels of many
of these compounds in the Providence River. However, there is very.little
data on finfish response to the conditions in the study area.

It Js apparent from various sources that there is a large variety of ' finfish
in the Upper Bay, even in the upper reaches of the 'Providence River.
Records of fish impinged on the Narragansett Electric power plant's intake
screens near Fox Point indicate that from 1975 to 1977 20,500 to 68,400
fish representing 35 species were caught on the screens each year. The
thousands of each of menhaden, alewives, silversides, mummichogs, silver-
hake, weakfish, and winter flounder that are caught on the screens indicates
that many more must frequent the length of the Providence River. The few
studies done in the River indicate that there arepopulations of small worms,
crustaceans and bivalves living in the bottom of the upper river (although
not in the channel bottom) that probably serve as a food source for finfish.
it is generally hypothesized that depleted oxygen levels due to bio-
oxidation of organic loadings discharged primarily by the sewage treatment
plants are the most detrimental to passage of finfish up the Providence
River. Almost every year schools of menhaden die inthe upper Providence
and Seekonk River due to elevated temperatures and depleted dissolved
oxygen. Increasing the efficiency of BOD and settleable solids treatment
by the sewage treatment plants, most particularly the. Fields Point plant,
may substantially alleviate this problem.

Since 1969, DEM has taken monthly trawis@in the Upper Bay off Ohio ledge
(See Figure 2-8) and regularly catches about 10 species of commercially
valuable groundfish including winter flounder, tautog, silver and red hake,
butterfish, squeteague and scup. only moderate numbers are caught and
they fluctuate from year to year. Nevertheless, valuable finfish are
certainly present in the Upper Bay'. In a survey completed by Matthiessen
in 1973 of fish eggs and larvae in the Upper Bay, it is apparent that the
Upper Bay is an important spawning area for a number of fish that inhabit
the Bay. Evidently water quality'problems are not severe enough to pro-
hibit spawning and larval development. The Upper Bay and lower Providence
River are particularly important spawning areas for menhaden, winter
flounder, tautog, and anchovy. It is also a spawning area for weakfish,
scup, Atlantic herring and silver hake. Other fish such as striped bass
and bluefish do not spawn in the Upper Bay but seasonally frequent the area.

SUMMRY FINDINGS: UPPER BAY FISHERIES

1. Information Sources

(a) Sufficient historical information is available to characterize Upper
Bay fishery resources in general descriptive terms.
(b) There are few data on shellfish or finfish catches by recreational
or commercial fishermen in the study area.
(c) Estimates have been made of the size of the quahog population in
the Upper Bay and lower Providence River (Stringer, Saila, et al.,
Sisson, DEM). The estimates vary widely depending on the methods
used. No population estimates exist for finfish resources although
DEM has been sampling routinely for bottom fish at a station in the
Upper Bay since 1969.

(d) The levels of major pollutants in quahogs are sampled monthly by DEM
at several stations in the Upper Bay; there is no data on levels of
pollutants in finfish from within the study area.

2. Historical. Fisheries

(a) The study area was once renowned for its abundant shellfish. It
was particularly famous for the managed oyster fishery that
flourished in the 1800s. A prolific oyster bed survived in the
Seekonk River until the late 1800s and the Bay's most prized oyster
growing areas were found in.the Providence River. The Narragansett
Bay oyster industry began a rapid decline in the 1920s and had
entirely disappeared by 1957.
(b) The quahog fishery expanded as the oyster industry declined. Many
of the most productive beds in the entire Bay are in the lower
Providence River. These beds were closed to fishing due to pollu-
tion in the 1950s.
(c) Bay scallops and soft shelled clams were also abundant in the study
area. Soft shelled clams are still numerous but bay scallops
disappeared from the Bay as a resource capable of supporting a
fishery inthe early 1950s.
(d) The study area was rich in anadromous fish that declined in the
late 1800s because of water pollution and the damming of streams
and rivers.

3. Present Status of Shellfisheries

(a) Quahoging is the major commercial fishery in the study area. In
1969, with the. conditional area permanently off limits, the entire
Rhode Island harvest was 2 million pounds, which is 40 percent of
the peak harvest in 1955. It is estimated that permanent closure
of the conditional area reduced the fishery by at least 30 percent.
(b) Quahog surveys in the Providence River conducted in the 1960s showed
a very large population composed primarily of old "coconut" sized
quahogs. In 1975 and 1978, DEM sampled the quahogs in the lower
Providence River and found a large population composed primarily
.of the valuable cherry stones and littlenecks. Differences in
sampling technique make it difficult to compare early surveys to
more recent ones with confidence. However, it would appear that
the mature population found in the 1960s died off and has been
replaced by an abundant new population.
(c) DEM estimates that the present quahog population in the conditional
area and lower Providence River could support a fishery with an
annual harvest of 6 million pounds shellweight. This is a rough
estimate based on very limited data.
(d) The impact of water pollution on the quahogs in the lower
Providence River and conditional area is not well understood. The
scanty data that does exist indicates that, on occasion, quahogs
in some areas of the lower Providence River and conditional area
contain coliform levels higher than the standard for sale as food
without dupuration set by the federal Food and Drug Administration.

Levels of copper and cadmium have also exceeded FDA "alert levels"
in areas of the upper Providence River. It appears that in general
the quahogs in the lower Providence River and conditional area do
not contain excessive levels of pollutants.
(e) Areas are closed to shellfishing primarily on the basis of coliform
levels in surface waters. This practice leaves a large safety
margin since the waters in the study area behave as a two-layered
estuarine system where clean water from the ocean flows up into
the estuary along the bottom to compensate for the seaward flow
of les's saline, more polluted surface water.
(f) Soft shelled clams are more abundant in the study area than is
generally recognized. Large b6ds are present in deep water as well
as in the intertidal zone. This resource has potential for a
commercial fishery if water pollution problems are solved.
(9) The historic importance of the Providence River oyster fishery
cannot be neglected. The area may again be capable of supporting
significant oyster-growing activity if water quality improved.

4. Present Condition of Finfisheries

(a) The study area supports a considerable recreational fishery. A
recent one-year survey indicates that one third of the total Bay
catch of winter flounder and bluefish, and nearly all the Bay catch
of striped bass were taken from the study area.
(b) Menhaden are seasonally abundant in the study area and are fished
commercially below Sabin Point. The eel population in the study
area may be capable of supporting a larger fishery.
(c) Despite occasional die-offs caused by low oxygen levels, the upper
Providence River supports a surprisingly diverse population of
bottom fish. More information on this population is badly needed.
(d) There appear to be substantial opportunities to improve the status
of recreational finfisheries in the study area.

REFERENCES

Alexander, Lewis. 1966. Narragansett Bay: A Marine Use Profile. URI
Report, 132 pp.

Boehm, P. 1977. The transport and fate of benthic hydrocarbons. Ph.D.
Thesis, URI. 175 pp.

Callaghan, D. and R.A. Comerford. 1978. The Economic I mpact of Commercial
Fishing on the State of Rhode Island, 1975. URI Marine Tech. Report
#65, 32 pp.

Department of Environmental Management, State of Rhode Island. Upper Bay
Monitoring Data 1970-1978.

Farrington, J. 1971. Benthic lipids of Narragansett Bay. Ph.D. Thesis, URI.
141 pp.

Goode, C.B. 1887. The Fisheries and Fishing Industries of the United States
Section 5, Vol. 2. Rhode Island Chapter.

Holmsen, A.A. 1973. Rhode Island's Floating Fish Trap Fishery. URI Marine
Bulletin #14, 10 pp.

Kremer, J.N. and S.W. Nixon. 1978. A Coastal Marine Ecosystem. Springer
Verlag, N.Y. 217 pp.

Matthiessen, G.C. 1973. Rome Point Investigations. Progress Reports.
Marine Research, Inc.

McConnell, K.E., T.P. Smith and R.E. Noorigian. 1978. Marine Recreational
Fishing in Rhode Island. URI Marine Memorandum #60.

Olsen, S.B. and D.K. Stevenson. 1975. Commercial Marine Fish and Fisheries
of Rhode Island. URI Marine Tech. Report #34, 117 pp.

Oviatt, C.A. 1977. Menhaden, Sportfish and Fishermen. URI Marine Tech.
Report #60,24-pp.

Rhode Island Landings. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries, Dept. of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Saila, S.B., J.M. Flowers and II.T. Cannario. 1967. Factors Affecting the
Relative Abundance of Mercenaria mercenaria in the Providence River,
Rhode Island. Proceed. National Shellfisheries Assoc. 57.

Sisson, R.T. 1976. Hard Clam Resource Assessment Study in Upper Narragansett
Bay and the Providence River, Rhode Island. DEM Leaflet #49, 23 pp.

Stringer, L.D. 1959. The Population Abundance and Effect.of Sediment on
the Hard Clam. Hurricane Damage Control. Narragansett Bay and
Vicinity. U.S.D.I.-F.W.S., Boston, MA.

Providence Harbor

INTRODUCTION

Providence Harbor stretches from Pomham Rocks Light north to the Henderson
Bridge..(Figure 3-1). Within the harbor are petroleum terminals, marine
service and repair facilities,.docks that specialize in bulk, dry, and
liquid cargo handling, and the Port of Providence.which is a general cargo
facility. It is a modest operation by North Atlantic standards, but
dominates some ten miles of metropolitan shoreline. The Harbor has grown
and changed with the surrounding urban area during the past two centuries,
although its history is less known and appreciated than that of nearby resi-
dential and commercial districts. For many, the disorderly and rough
appearance of the Providence Harbor port facilities symbolizes the worst
features of contemporary urban society: decay, ugliness, inefficiency,
and economic decline. Accompanying this image is a tolerance for the
neglect of harbor problems which is justified by a feeling that port indus-
try has a limited future.

The purpose of this chapter is to test the validity of the image and assump-
tions which have fostered a cynical view of harbor development and renewal
prospects, and to suggest a strategy for achieving new interest, concern,
and commitment to the future of the port industry. The analysis presented
here is an attempt to characterize Providence Harbor as a geographic entity
with both important problems and good prospects. It is also an effort to.
illustratethe important relationship between urban waterfront revitalization
and the broader issues of metropolitan growth and decline.

There is a potential for growth in Providence Harbor during the 1980s. The
Port of Providence, which is operated by the Department of Public Works of
the City of Providence has made progress in recent years, increasing'traffic
.and revenues, upgrading berths and improving terminal facilities. The
Providence and Worcester Railroad is pursuing a plan which would create a
major new wharf adjacent to the Wilkes Barre terminal on the East Providence
shore. Creation of a new berth at the southern most part of Fields Point
is one of the long-range plans for Providence. Some oil terminals have
recently announced plans for berth dredging and pier rec onstruction. Only
the Port of Providence however, has taken advantage of the 40-foot channel
dredged for the benefit of petroleum tankers by the Army Corps of Engineers
in the early 1970s, by dredging three of its berths to channel depth.

Providence Harbor still lags behind most other ports of its size in new
investments. It faces a number of limiting factors, the most important
of which is the absence of basic planning and development programs for the
Harbor as a whole. The state's approach to the redevelopment of Quonset/
Davisville is an example of the coherent and orderly development program so

SWAN 0
PT,

1000 2000 ft

100 300

Henderson
Bridge

PROVIDENCE

EAST PROVIDENCE
INDIA PT.
BOLD PT.

FOX PT.

\,AASSAFRAS
PT. ATCHEMOKET
COVE

KETTLE
PT.

F
LDS.
IE
PT.
C,

9 Pomham
Rocks

clearly needed for the Port of Providence. At Quonset/Davisville publicly
owned properties are being improved, roads, utilities and services upgraded,
and industrial clients provided with A package of services and incentive
for locating at the site. Providence Harbor may not be wholly bwned by
the public, yet it was created by the expenditure of a considerable amount
of federal, state and local funds. Consequently the harbor has a similar
need for planning, management and public support to insure that as a major
public investment it provides a full return to themetropolitan area.

State agency plans and programs must begin to recognize Providence Harbor
as a functioning geographic unit with development opportunities and renewal
needs not unlike those of Quonset/Davisville. This acknowledgement would
in turn provide the impetus for-building understanding and cooperation among
the many public and private parties concerned about the future of the harbor.
Such agency cooperation is a prerequisite for successfully dealing with
issues such as dredge spoil disposal, highway improvements, rail service
upgrading, debris removal, effective and efficient regulatory review and
development planning, promotion and financing. Four basic steps need to
be taken to increase public and private commitment to the harbor's future:

Communication: a dialogue among the public and private sectors is needed
to increase the level of knowledge and understanding of harbor issues and
improve coordination among public agencies with responsibilities important
to harbor development.

Commitment: a formal state commitment to harbor development and renewal
can begin by refining the policies of the several agencies with respbnsibili-
ties affecting the harbor and sponsoring more detailed economic and manage-
ment analysis of port activities and prospects.

.qevi@l T@ent Project ': state assistance should be provided to municipalities
to develop a more sophisticated ability to package those proposals which
incorporate an element of public financing as well as private investment,
in order to achieve waterfront development and renewal goals. The slogan
used by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey applies here:
11activate, energize, and organize."

Structural Changes:. improvements in harbor planning and development do not
depend upon an immediate move toward creating a new governmental structure
to manage the harbor. However, the process involved in taking steps outlined
above will-help to identify the need and feasibility of a mechanism, such
as an expanded Rhode Island Port Authority or Providence Harbor Association
that might be formed in conjunction with a reorganization of the Port of
Providence.

GROWTH AM DEVELOPMENT OF PROVIDENCE HARBOR

Introduction

The character and function of Providence Harbor has changed significantly
in the twentieth century, in response to the shifting needs of the Providence

metropolitan area. Except for a brief period,in the 1800s it has not, in
contrast to Boston and New York, been involved in foreign commerce nor has
it served as a major shipping point for goods produced or manufactured
inland. Despite-the absence in recent decades.of a significant state and
municil)al port development program, substantial taxpayer financed improve-
ments of the harbor and municipal wharf have been achieved, and overall
port activity has.increased., The present harbor is composed of a mixture
of.obsolete and new facilities and uses which symbolize both recent public
neglect and the longer term fundamental viability of waterborne commerce.

Historical AcqLylly

Providence, like all other settlements on Narragansett Bay was served by
coastal trade since its founding in the early 17th century. International
trade was important for a few decades after the Revolutionary War when
Providence Harbor was a shallow estuary with depths probably no greater
than ten feet. In the port's early days ships docked along what is now
South Water Street on the east side of the Providence River above Fox Point.
The area from India Point to Fox Point had begun to develop as a major part
of a growing port by 1800. Trade to China, India and Europe yielded import
duties that averaged over $200,000 annually after the first decade of the
19th century. This international trade had essentially disappeared.by
1830 due to the increasing risks posed by international conflicts, pirating
and the emerging role of the federal government in controlling foreign trade.
In its place, coastal trade flourishedand expanded during the nineteenth
century as Providence entrepreneurs led the nation into an industrial
revolution, which was accompanied by the rapid construction of factories,
businesses and homes.

Harbor Improvemen@s.

The rapid development of Providence in the nineteenth century was accompanied
by three important developments affecting the waterfront: filling, dredging,
and railroads. A major storm in 1815 had caused considerable damage to
the waterfront. Extensive filling created Dyer Street and was accompanied
by the.construction of slips for steam boats and cargo vessels. The first
railroad to open in Providence was the Boston and Providence in 1835 which
followed the East Providence side of the Seekonk and across a bridge at
India Point. A second company, the New York, Providence and Boston, opened
a line between Sassafras Cove just above Fields Point and Stonington,
Connecticut. This line was soon extended to Fox Point, where connection
could be-made with a line to.Boston. In 1855, the Providence, Warren and
Bristol railroad opened, with its terminal at Fox Point, and track which
in effect created a new shoreline between Bold Point and Sabin Point. By
then, the Providence and Worcester and other lines had developed a union
terminal near the present location of the Union Station, just below the
State House. This essentially completed the basic structure of rail service
to the port.

In 1790 the River Machine Company was formed to keep Providence Harbor free
of obstructions. Major dredging of Providence Harbor by the Army Corps of
Engineers began in 1852 and continued with successive project depths of 9,

12, 14 and 23 feet. In 1882, the Corps began dredging a 25-fQot deep,
300-foot wide channel that enabled the largest steam vessels of the time
to reach Providence. By 1904, general cargo activity was concentrated
between India Point to the west, and a large area bounded inland by Dyer
Street and Allens Avenue as far south as the present Manchester Street power
station.

Present Harbor Confiz_U_rat@(@ji

The Providence metropolitan area was in its prime in 1900, a time of strong
economy and rapid population and urban growth. It was also approaching its
capacity for expansion. During the early decades of,the 20th century,
Providence Harbor underwent a protracted transformation which, by the end
of World War II left Rhode Island with the basic configuration of port uses
that exist today. The relocation of general cargo handling to the present
municipal wharf operated by the city of Providence began in the early part
of this century. The Manchester Street and South Street power stations,
began operating in 1902 and 1909 respectively, and pre-empted manyacres of
the the waterfront previously utilized for general cargo and passengers.
The City of Providence began laying a network of more than 63 miles of
sewer lines in the late 1890s. The Providence Sewage Treatment Plant was
buil@ at what was then Fields Point and began operating in 1901. At the
time it was an outstanding example of the state of the art in the treatment
of municipal waste water.

Between 1913 and 1914, a major cooperative Providence Harbor improvement
project was carried out by the Army Corps of Engineers, the City of Providence
and the state of Rhode Island. The shipping channel and harbor were to be
dredged to a 30-foot depth at-mean low water, including the excavation of
the original Fields Point. Shoreside improvements of $2 million accompanied
the dredging to meet the local participation required by Congress. These
included a state pier along Allens Avenue, and the 3,000 foot long Providence
municipal quay adjacent to the sewage treatment plant. Much of the wharf
and land north of the plant was leased to private operators.

The growing demand for petroleum products was another force of change on
the waterfront. The first storage tanks were built in East Providence
near the Red Bridge in 1890. The terminal now occupied by Mobil just north
of Pomham rocks was developed in 1917. Gulf Oil located at Kettle Point,
just to the north was built in 1920. In Providence, coal offloading opera-
tions were gradually converted to petroleum and new sites for fuel storage
were built there as well.

The next major dredging project was planned in 1937 and completed in 1949.
It widened the channel to its present 600 feet in Narragansett Bay, and
increased the depth to 35 feet. The extension of the Municipal Wharf by
an additional 1,300 feet was a federal stipulation for this dredging effort.
A considerable area of shoals south of the original wharf was filled to create
the additional berths in 1941. By 1950, ninetenths of all traffic in
Providence Harbor involved the movement of petroleum, a situation which has'
remained virtually unchanged in the subsequent thirty years. The dredging of

Providence Harbor and channel to 40 feet by the Army Corps of Engineers
was planned in 1962 and carried out between 19.67 and 1975. The project
was justified solely on the basis of reducing the cost of petroleum delivery
through an increase in the size of tankers' using the harbor and assumDtion
that petroleum consumption in the region would increase steadily

Barges carried petroletim to several piers on the East Providence side of
the Seekonk up to the 1970s. These piers are now unused and in disrepair.
I-11ghway and railroad bridges, combined with a narrow shallow channel, have
rendered commercial traffic uneconomical in this portion of Providence Harbor.
Navigation improvements in the Seekonk River, cannot presently be justified
by the Army Corps of Engineers.

PRESENT HARBOR AND PORT INDUSTRY CHARACTERISTICS

Waterborne commerce in Providence Harbor is barely visable at the national
level and is overshadowed in the North Atlantic by Boston, New York and
several other larger ports. The level of port industry activity in the
harbor is influenced by national patterns and trends as well as market condi-
tions in southern New England. The 1970s have seen major fluctuations in
total traffic caused principally by declining petroleum consumption.
However, between 1969 and 1977 Providence Harbor has performed better than
any other New England port in growth of inbound general and dry bulk cargo,
and above average in outbound cargo. This section provides a sketch of the
national and regional trends in cargo movement and some detail on the perfor-
mance and trends in Providence Harbor. The information presented has been
compiled largely from available published sources which may be out of
date or incomplete. A comprehensive economic and operational assessment of
the Harbor remains to be made.

Waterborne Cargo Movement

National and Regional Context; The United States suffers from a trade
imbalance. In 1977 import tonnage was 1.6 times exports, due principally
to imports of bulk commodities such as petroleum. Exports declined while
imports increased between 1973 and 1977. Both North and South Atlantic
ports have lost their share of imports to the Gulf Coast, which experienced
a three-fold increase in activity in this five-year period. Exports have
declined in all port regions except the South Atlantic which has seen a
steady increase (Maritime Administration, 1979).

The total import and export activity in North Atlantic ports, which range
from Portland, Maineto Alexandria, Virginia, declined 15.3 percent
between 1973 and 1977. The greatest changes occurred in imports of bulk
fuel and ore, and coal exports (Table 3-1). While Providence Harbor
.declined in its share of North Atlantic import-export activity, other ports
have shown increases. Growth in exports occurred in Baltimore, and
Wilmington, Delaware, while imports increased in Portland, Maine; Wilmington
and Marcus Hook, New Jersey; and Newport News, Virginia.

TABLE 3-1

EXPORTS FROM ALL UNITED STATES PORTS
(millions of long tons),

1973 .1974 1975 1976 1977

North Atlantic 55.0 58.1 52.5 50.0 44.3
South Atlantic 5.8 6.5 6.2 6.7 7.0
Gulf Coast 96.3 87.6 84.8 97.5 95.8
Pacific 46.5 43.5 38.8 42.7 38.9
Great Lakes 32.7 22.9 27.9 27.8 28.7

TOTAL 230.5 218.9 215.5 225.6 214.9

IMPORTS TO ALL UNITED STATES PORTS
(millions of long tons)

North Atlantic. 209.1 194.3 171.0 174.9 179.2
South Atlantic 25.2 23.1 18.4 18.3
Gulf Coast 89.8 115.6 132.4 183.5 247.5
Pacific 52.4 53.8 513.4 66.9 80.9
Great Lakes 24.9 20.3 18.3 26.8 28.7

TOTAL 401.6 407.3 391.3 470.6 554.8

Source: Maritime Administration, 1979.

In the face of generally stagnant waterborne commerce throughout the
nation, particularly in foreign trade,it is not difficult to understand
why many states have struggled to remain competitive in the handling of
general cargo. North Atlantic ports have lost the lead in both investments
and activity to the Gulf Coast and South-Atlantic states where dramatic
economic and population growth is occurring.' An increasing proportion of
this new development is being financed with public funds (Table 3-2),

Table 3-2. National Trends in Financing Port Development
.(percent of new investment)

Source 1968-1972 1973-1978

Federal 7 12
State 15 13
Local 22 25
Private 56 50

Total 100 100

Source: Maritime Administration, 1980.

New England also suffers from a trade imbalance. Its ports handle 3.6 times
as much inbound as outbound dry cargo. Movement of general and dry bulk
cargo declined by more than 9 percent between 1969 and 1977. Inbound move-
ments dropped 10 percent and outbound movements decreased nearly 7 percent
during this period. Against this trend, Providence Harbor has shown growth
in both areas (Table 3-3).

Table 3-3. Historical Growth Rates of General and Dry Bulk
Cargo Tonnage Moving Via New England Ports
1969-1977
Percentage change denotes decrease

Port Inbound Outbound

Searsport, ME (6.9) 12.5
Portland, ME (23.9) 13.7
Portsmouth, NH (5-0) n/a
Boston, MA (2.2) 5.1
New Bedford, MA 2.4 8.1
Fall River, MA 1.11 32.2
Providence, RI 3.3 10.5
New London, CT @0.5 33.6
New Haven, CT (1.2) (5.5)
Bridgeport, CT 0.3 (3.7)
Weighted Average (1.62) (0.01)

Compound annual growth rates

Source: Temple, Barker, and Sloane, 1980.

Its share of total regional traffic has increased significantly, with a gain
of 6 percentage points of inbound traffic and 19 percentage points of out-
bound traffic.

New England ports do not handle all of the waterborne cargo either imported
or exported from the region (Table 3-4).

Table 3-4.. Imports and Exports in New England by Customs
Region of Shipment and Receipt
1976
(percentage of total weight)

General Cal@&q@ Bulk Cargo
Imports Exports Imports Exports

Boston 57 52 97 93
New York 32 38 2 .6
Baltimore 4 2
New Orleans 1 4 1
Houston
Los Angeles 2 1
San Francisco 3 3
Chicago

Total 100 100 100 100

Source: Bureau of the Census, 1979.

Bulk cargo imports and export, principally petroleum, almost exclusively
enters the Boston region. However 48 percent of general cargo exports and
47 percent of imports by value entered the region through New York.

Trends in regional waterborne cargo movements are associated with land freight
transportation. Data available on the movement of international freight
in Boston Customs Region 1 (which includes all of New England as well as
Western and Northern New York State) show that most imports and exports are
moved to and from ships by truck (Table 3-5). Imports and exports in
New England declined between 1970 and 1976 and were accompanied by a drop
in associated rail and truck freight.

Providence Harbor has witnessed an overall growth in port activity since
World War II (Figure 3-2). Receipts of petroleum and petroleum products in
1977 were 24 percent higher than in 1950. However, if coal receipts are
included the difference in tonnage is.reduced to a 4.5 percent increase
over 27 years. Non-energy cargo has shown dramatic growth in the post-war
era. Non-coal dry cargo receipts increased from 173 thousand tons to 1,142
thousand tons between 1950 and 1977. Shipments have increased even more
dramatically due largely to the export of scrap metal.

'44

10-

0
00 00 0
0 0 0 0
z 0 0 0 0
0 8- 000 000,000 10
0

0
00
06-

Cf)

U.
04-
0
Cl)
z
0
_j 2-
-j

01
1940 50 60 70 80
Y E. A R.

Figure 3-2. Growth in total cargo movements,in Providence
Harbor.
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Table 3-5. Land Transportation of International Waterborne Commerce
to and From New England, 1976
(thousands of tons)

Imports Exports

TOTAL INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC 15,557 1,570
General Cargo 1,477 502
Bulk Cargo 14,079 1,068

LAND TRANSPORT MODE
General Cargo
Truck 1,060 385
Rail 61 93
Other or none 24

1,477 502

Bulk Cargo
Truck 574 858
Rail 0 12
Other or none 13,505 198
14,079 1,068

Source: Bureau of the Census, 1979.

During the 1970s, the total tonnage handled in the Harbor has fluctuated,
with the peak in freight movement occurring in 1973. The principal cause
of this variation has been declining petroleum receipts. Table 3-6 and
3-7 and Figure 3-3 show data from two sources, annual reports covering
fiscal year activity (July 1 - June 30) compiled by the Port of Providence
and data collected annually by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The data
reported by the Port of Providence show two peaks of freight movement,
preceeding the OPEC oil embargo of 1973, and preceeding a reported shortage
of gasoline and the Iranian revolution in 1978. Both periods saw signifi-
cant petroleum price increases. General non petroleum dry and liquid cargo
movement has shown an overall increase during the decade (Figure 3-4).
Receipts have remained stable, while exports of scrap metal were 2.4 times
higher in YY 1978 than FY 1972. Automobile receipts increased 63 percent
between FY 1976 and FY 1978, declining somewhat in 1979.

Inbound harbor vessel traffic has fluctuated between 2,000 and 4,000
movements annually, declining from 3,739 inbound trips in 11973 to 2,688
in 1977. Petroleum tankers and barge traffic declined because of 'lower
volumes and increasing vessel size. Passenger and dry cargo traffic on the
other hand increased 64 percent between 1970 and 1977 (Table 3-8).

Table 3-6. Historical Cargo Flows, 1969-1977
Providence, Rhode Island (000a short tons)

---- Foreign ------------------ Domestic -----------------
Coastwise Local
Total Imports Exports Receipts Shipment Receipts Shipment Local

--------------------------------------- 1969 -------------------------------------------------
Total. 10,153 2,220 171 6,190 722 116 565 166
Pet. Prod. 9,505 1,972 0 5,968 716 109 565 166
Other 648 247 171 221 6 6 0 0

--- - - - - ---------------------- ----- 1970 ------- - --- ----------- --------- - - - - --- - -------
Total 9,872 2,388 286 6,106 495 100 412 81
Pet. Prod. 9,116 2,149 0 5,878 495 98 412 .81
Other 754 238 286 228 0 2 0 0

--- - - - - - ------------ - --------- - -- 1971 ------ - - ------ - - --- - ----------- - -- - ---- - - --------

Total 8,762 1,863 212 5,936 448 51 205 43
Pet. Prod. 7,812 1,509 0 5,710 432 51 205 43
Other 949 353 212 225 16 7 0 0

--- - ---- - -- ----- - ---------------- - - 1972 ------------------- - - ---- - --- - -- - ------ - ----------
Total 9,200 1,908 261 6,097 447' 92 278 113
Pet. Prod. 8,324 1,549 0 5,643 434 92 278 113
Other 875 358 261 554 13 0 0 0

--- - ------ - -- - --------------------- - 1973

Total 10,236 1,084 408 5,728 452 132 343 35
Pet. Prod. 9,125 @2,663 0 5,455 445 132 343 35
Other 1,110 421 408 273 6 0 0 0

------------------- - - ----------------- 1974 -- - --------- - ----- - - - -------- - ------------------- - -

Total 8,856 2,246 369 5,399 368 103 309 59
Pet. Prod. 7,705 1,842 0 5,027 362 103 309 59
Other 1,150 403 369 371 5 0 0 0

- -------- - - -- - ------------ - ---------- 1975

Total 8,266 1,135 294 5,839 239 234 459 63
Pet. Prod. 7,453 852 0 5,604 239 .234 459 63
Other 812 350 297 234 0 0 0 0

---- - - - - - ----- - - ---------------- 1976

Total 8,678 1,104 509 6,202 241 185 250 83
Pet. Prod. 7,468 754 0 5,952 241 185 250 83
Other 1,109 351) 509 249 0 0 0 0

--- - --- ------------------------- - ---- 1977 ------ - ----- - -------- - - - - -
Total 8,624 1,246 408 6,220 317 351 53 26
Pet. Prod. 7,498 796 0 5,470 299 351 53 26
Other 1',125 449 408 249 17 0 0 0

Source: Waterborne Commerce of the United Statt!@.. Annual,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Table 3-7. Traffic in Providence Harbor
Fiscal Years 1972-1979
(thousands of tons)

1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979

Total Traffic 8,660 15,370 9,008 7,8.42 8,931 10,941 6,642 7,767

Total Receipts 7,789 13,568 7,844 7,089 7,703 9,731 6,003@ 6,914
oil 7,174 13,035 7,258 6,482 7,318 .9,140 5,447 6,336
other 615 533 586 607 384 591 556 548

Total
Shipments 870 1,801 1,164 752 1,227 1,209 638 852
oil 606 1,518 867 419 782 782 212 222
other. 264 283 296 332 444 427 426 630

Total Oil 7,780 14,553 8,126 6.902 8,101 9,922 5,659 6,588

Total Other 879 81T 882 939 829 1,018 982 1,178

Source: Rhode Island Department of Economic Development, various dates, and Rhode Island
Statewide Planning Program, 1979.

MILLIO NS OF SHORT TONS

0 IN F5

>
;U 0

z M
z
z C')
M

00
> >
--i

Figure 3-3. Total waterborne commerce in Providence Harbor.

lo- TOTAL CA
MOVEMENT
110 41
0

>
0 @I ::r z
@J H-
0
rD
0 ::1
Pd rr
(D cn
"ZI
rD 0 03 U, CARGO SHI
;j " zi
0 rt 0.
(D cn 0 CARGO RE
5-
U)
z
0

0
1972 74 76 78
F I S C A L Y E A R
Ar'@

Table 3-8. Inbound Vessel Traffic in Providence Harbor

Self propelled Not self propelled

Passenger,
Year Dry Cargo Tanker Tug/tow 'Dry Tanker TOTAL

1955 436 821 992 73 307 2,631
1960 368 762 784 33 308 2,219
1965 226 825 901 81 421 2,454
1970 283 579 1,224- 74 573 2,371
1973 403 707 1,899 109 621 3,739
1975 269 600 1,402 74 562 2,907
1977 465 413 1,253 72 485 2,688

Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division.

Providence Harbor is used by a mixture of public and private operat,ors. Of
23 active terminals and berths, 9 are used principally for receiving
petroleum products, including the Manchester Street power plant. The Port
of Providence has 6 berths for handling cargo and petroleum products. The
eight remaining active wharves and piers are privately operated for a mixture
of marine transport uses including passengers, chemicals, general cargo,
marine repair, and tugboat service. The Army Corps of Engineers project
completed in 1975 created a 40-foot channel to Providence Harbor that was
designed to accommodate the anticipated growth in regional petroleum con-
sumption and transport of oil through the harbor, an expectation which has
not materialized.

In 1960, petroleum tankers experienced delays on 45 percent of trips.
Virtually no vessel greater than 35 feet in draft was used. Tankers with
drafts of 31 and 32 feet respectively accounted for half of vessel trips
by ships drawing more than 27 feet. Shifts in the fleet of tankers-was
noticeable in data for 1977. Tankers of 28- to 32-foot drafts accounted
for only a third of trips, the remainder were made by larger ships.

Shorefront Land Use

The establishment of better uses for vacant and underutilized property in
urban areas is an old and difficult problem. Planning, acquisition, and
financing are time consuming and expensive, particularly when many small
lots must be incorporated to make a workable parcel. Waterfront redevelop-
ment is even more costly because of the additional problems of stabilizing
the shore and flood hazards, as wellas its normal higher value. However,
these costs are offset by corresponding higher use values which result from
well developed urban waterfront property.

Commercial and industrial shorefront land use in upper Narragansett Bay
is confined chiefly to Providence Harbor and the Seekonk River, but
includes small areas in Warren and Bristol. The east side of the Seekonk

River, known as Phillipsdale, is occupied by manufacturing and commercial
firms. Land use along the Providence River is dominated by waterborne
transport uses, principally petroleum and liquefied gases, marine services,
general cargo handling at the Port of Providence, bulk cargo, and various
other uses such as warehouses, wholesale and retail businesses, and power
generating stations.

Landuse in the vicinity of Providence Harbor, as defined by the irregular
band of coastal census tracts (Figure 3-5) indicates some important
differences from the metropolitan area as a whole (Table 3-9). Vacant
land comprises 13 percent of the total, most of which exists on the East
Providence side. Two categories, Transportation and Utilities, and Culture
and Recreation are higher in the coastal area.

Table 3-9. Land Use in Shoreline Census Tracts
(excluding Pawtucket)

Land Use in Shoreline Census
Tracts of Providence and Providence Waterfront
East Providence Project Area Analysis
Percent otal rov E Prov. Percent Acreage
Icres Kcre@ Acres

Residential 31 2391 940 1451 1.1 6.8

Manufacturing 6 489 145 344 1.3 8.1

Transportation,
Communication & 12 951 370 581 3.78 233.5
Utilities

Trade & Services 8 642 330 312 33.3 207.5

Institutional &
Governmental 8 641 529 112 14.0 86.3

Culture.&
Recreation 21 1590 449 1141 - --

Extraction &
Farming 1 66 0 66 0 0
Vacant 13 1016 144 872 12.5 76.8

Total 100 7786 2907 4879 100 617.2

Note; See Figure 4-5.

Most of the Providence Harbor shoreline is zoned for industrial use, with
the exception of the west.bank of the Seekonk River, and other scattered
open and residential zones (Figure 3-6). A survey of industrial zoned
property in 1978 indicated that about 30 percent of shorefront industrial
sites were vacant and suffering from various site deficiencies including
hazards, small parcel size, topography and poor soils (Table 3-10).

Figure 3-5. Land use analys'
presented in Table 3-9.

Census Tracts

Waterfront Pro ect
Study
;N"e

Figure 3-6. Land zoned for industry
(See Table 3-10)

P 3 p

P 34

EP 7

P 33 EP 8

EP 11

-5.4-

Table 3-10. Character of Industrially Zoned Land

Area Size Industrial Other -Vacant SWP Commentary
Uses Uses

PROVIDENCE

33 Prov. River 762 .492 173 87 flood hazard, small
parcels
34 Fox Point 69 17 38 14 flood hazards
35 Waterman Ave. 13 5 4 4 small parcels

CRANSTON

8 Naval Reserve 36 17 18 1 occupied

EAST PROVIDENCE

4 Seekonk 208 186 4 18 restricted access

7 67 47 20 steep slope,
flood hazard

8 28 28 occupied

11 Mobile Pier 749 309 68 372 mixed character:
steep slope, poor
soils, flood
hazard in some
parts, other por-
tions have few
restrictions

Source: R.I. Statewide Planning Program, 1978.

A -major example of some of the difficulties in utilizing industrially zoned
waterfront.land is the city operated Municipal Wharf, which is reaching the
limits of its expansion and operating possibilities due to the awkward lay-
out and development of facilities. The use and control of municipally
owned property in the area is complex, resulting in costly delays for new
projects such as the new transit terminal, and limits to the growth of opera-
tions such as container service. The pattern of development has led to a
mix of uses, many of which are not directly related to shorefront port
activity that constructs present operations and limits future expansion.
Figure 3-7 shows the general layout of uses, and identifies operations
directly linked with shipping. Creation of the proposed berth 7 and permanent
usage of the filled land behind it will be the last step in a fifty-year
long development phase for the Port of Providence. Future opportunities
will require the redevelopment of currently leased parcels, as well as
upgrading the uses of adjacent property.

Figure 3-7.

Nlunidpal Wharf Land Use

0 200 400 LNG

Trade &
G*nerai
Services
Bulk Liquids Bulk
& Utilities Liquids

T,:d:,., STP
G n
U-ices

0
2.

Metals
Processing

Trade General
SO-ices

LPG 4.

L..be,
Auto Storage

V..a.t

Unfortunately, the urban waterfront must compete for attention with many
other municipal priorities. The Providence waterfront is separated from
the downtown business center by 1-195, the Hurricane barrier, two power
plants and history. For most urban resident s, the Providence River cannot
serve as a dramatic open space similar to the Charles River or Boston Harbor
because of limited physical and visual access, which in turn reduces the
commercial potential of the waterfront.

Compounding these di@ficulties is the declining federal financial participa-
tion in urban redevelopment efforts in an era of skepticism about the role
government should play in solving urban'problems. Many states and municipali-
ties concerned about their future have become sophisticated in packaging
development proposals which mix private and public funds in a carefully
planned manner. Rhode Island must look to states such as Massachusetts for
models in improving its capability.for fashioning such packages.

Development Plans and EEp&raps_

From the national perspective, Providence Harbor has. lagged far behind both
other North Atlantic Ports and the nation as a whole in expenditures for
port physical improvements. According to a survey published in January 1980,
$1,600 million in new development, maintenance and repair was spent in all
U.S. ports between 1973 and 1978. Proposed port improvements of $3,300
million were planned for the period 1979-1983. North Atlantic ports con-
tributed $285 and $293 million to these past and future efforts respectively.
Providence Harbor did not appear in the inventory for either past of future
development plans. This, however, is not an accurate portrayal of local
activity and initiative.

State Plans: A general economic development study prepared for the state
in 1976 by Harbridge House, Inc. concludes:

In essence, we cannot see any real growth for cargo movements
of all kinds in Narragansett Bay, and in consequence, no potential
for stevedoring activity.

This analysis has had a dominant influence on Rhode Island.economic policy.
In the recent past, few state level initiatives have been made to support
port and waterfront development in Providence Harbor. Modest municipal
efforts to improve port operations, stimulate redevelopment and increase
port industry activity have been accompanied by some growth, but fall short
of meeting current needs and stimulating major new developments.

The most recent analysis and articulation of Providence Harbor development
issues and concerns is found in the Rhode Island Coastal Management Program
adopted in 1977. The Program concludes:

Port expansion and redevelopment is extremely costly.

The Providence-East Providence waterfront is heavily developed
and land values are extremely high.
Local funds for redevelopment and shoreline protection are
limited and state assistance may be necessary.

Long-range port planning is an extremely complicated and time con-
suming process.

Planning for the Port of Providence as broadly defined is com-
plicated by the number of governments involved--four cities,
the state and the federal government.
Planning must be placed in the overall context of urban develop-
ment. It must consequently address,transportation, public
access, recreation, housing and general commercial-industrial
issues in addition to narrowly defined port priori.ties.

The Coastal Resources Management Council recognizes an obligation
as the state's principal agency for coastal planning and management
to participate in the solution of these problems.

State land use, economic development and transportation policies and plans
do recognize Providence Harbor and the urban waterfront in a limited way.
General goals of the State Guide Plan include stimulating "industrial and
commercial interest in central cities through promotion, financial assis-
tance, and provision and renewal of public facilities." Within the broad
goal of planning transportation systems to shape and serve development in
accordance with the state land use plan, Rhode Island has adopted policy
statements such as:

Expand the hinterland of the port of Providence through improved
transportation facilities and reduced ground transportation changes.

Support efforts to diversify the products shipped through the
port of Providence, emphasizing package cargo.

Plan transportation facilities as contributing parts 'of an over-
all statewide multi-model transportation system within a regional
setting.

The state transportation plan, however, devotes little attention to the
port industry in the Providence Harbor, listing as development recommenda-
tions only the repair of Port of Providence facilities,which the City-already
is completing, and debris removal throughout the harbor, a project given
.little chance for funding. State plans as a whole fall short of the strong
initiative needed to solve harbor problems and improve its development
-.)rospects'.

Municipal and Private Pro raT@@: Municipalities have found Harbor develop-
g,
ment a difficult topic to tackle on their own. The City of Providence
abandoned its Waterfront Development Project in the late 1970s prior to
the publication of a single report. Improvements to existing facilities
have been costly and often controversial. The City of East Providence
has recently prepared a waterfront plan (February 1980) which criticizes
regulatory delays and proposes the development of a port agency or authority
to coordinate and supervise activities within Providence Harbor, including
fire prevention and safety, traffic control, navigation aids and port
development.

However, both private and public investments in facility upgrading are
occuring in Providence Harbor. The Providence municipal wharf is operated
by the Municipal Dock section of the Department of Public Works and is the
largest cargo facility in the Providence Harbor. It is a major source
of revenue for the city. Fees, charges and leases of $1,051,2 '90 were
collected in FY 1978 comprising 1.3 percent of all city generated revenues
(excluding the water department) in FY 1978. 'However, only $145,782 was
spent for wharf operating and maintenance expenses. Capital improvements
are financed by general obligation bonds floated by the City, after City
Council and voter.approval, reflecting the'lack of independence exercised by
the Port. In 1975, a $2.1 million bond was approved for improvements to
the Municipal Wharf, principally dredging and dock repairs to berths 4, 5,
and 6. An additional $6.5 million, is being used to build a new transit
shed. The City passed an additional $5 million bond in April 1980 to
meet its obligation to provide a deeper berth 3, which includes substan-
tial rebuilding of the bulkhead.

The immediate challenge faced by the City of Providence, as defined by its
Office of Economic Development, is to change the status of the Municipal
Dock section of the.Public Service Division of the Department of Public
Works by creating a Port Authority independent of the City's administrative
and political process. Port operating and maintenance costs would be taken
from port revenues rather than the City budget. Major capital improvements
would be financed through tax exempt revenues bonds authorized by a Board
of Directors, rather than city-wide referenda. The Port Authority would
hire its own staff and have greater ability to accommodate and follow
through inquiries and implement management recommendations. In addition,
a Port District is recommended which would be granted power of eminent domain
in order to achieve a more rational land use pattern along the waterfront.
Legislative approval will be required to create these organizational improve-
ments in the event that a home-rule charter is not adopted by voters.

Several petroleum terminal operators have recently completed or proposed
pier maintenance and rehabilitation projects. However, the 40-foot dredged
channel has not yet been used to full advantage by the petroleum industry.
None of the eight oil terminals have or are planning for berths equal to
channel depth. The Port of Providence, on the other hand, has dredged its
three southern berths to below 40 feet as part of a wharf rehabilitation
project in 1977. Cargo vessel size has been increasing in Providence
Harbor during the 1970s, which is an unanticipated result of dredging a 40-
foot channel.

Future Development: The major new port development proposals for the
1980s would make use of rail links between the Harbor and shippers as far
as the midwest, and consumers in New England and New York. The Providence
and Worcester Railroad proposal, has already obtained state and federal
permits. It would create an efficient wharf and marshalling area for con-
tainers, bulk or general cargo which could easily be moved by rail to
their final destination. Another project which was in the planning stage
at the Port of Providence until recently involved receipt of unit trains
from the midwest by Italgrani, a grain company, to a mill on the southern
side of Fields Point that would produce flour for a pasta manufacturer,

Prince Macaroni. A later phase would have entailed shipping grain from a
newly created berth at the southern end of Fields Point to foreign.
destinations. In June of 1980 a former Navy fueling pier at Melville,
located on the.west shore of Portsmouth, was favored by the Italgrani-
Prince group. Although neither project has begun construction, both serve
as examples of a logical direction for port revitalization in Providence
Harbor. It must be noted that in addition to large, rapidly escalating site
development costs, such proposals face the fundamental test of feasibility
in competing against other North Atlantic ports.

The other principal development effort presently foreseen for the '80s
entail more intense use of the Municipal Wharf. Harborside Park is a
privately owned facility which is presently used for port related business
such as automobile importing and a fledgling container service. The
acquisition of costly gantry cranes for use along berths 4, 5 and 6 of
municipal wharf would make the handling of containers much more efficient,
increasing the likelihood of a successful container service. In addition,
the dredging and constructing of a new berth will be required to enable
port operations to grow, since shorefront land is scarce. Any of these
improvements will cost millions of dollars not presently available to
the port director.

CONDITIONS FOR RENEWAL AND FUTURE GROWTH

Introduction

Port development is not a panacea for the ills of the metropolitan economy
nor is its future free of obstacles to expansion.and increased productivity.
Market conditions play the dominant role in establishing the viability of
the harbor. Rhode Island cannot influence the world economy or shipping
industry directly. However, it can adopt waterfront policies and programs
which would make possible the cooperation necessary for solving some of the
Harbor's physical, financial, organizational and developmental problems.

Public Commitment and Guidance

Providence Harbor does not receive full recognition as an important
economic district and transportation center which provides an essential
function for the metropolitan area. This is illustrated by the sharp
difference between Providence Harbor and Quonset Point/Davisville (QP/D)
in both the nature of operations and redevelopment planning. At QP/D the
state has followed a logical and orderly process for planning and is under-
taking a full range of site improvernents including land, waterfront, rail
and highway access and provision of services such as sewage, water, fire
protection, security, power and steam. Prospective clients deal with an
integrated organization which includes the director of QP/D operations,
the Department of Economic Development and its professional planning
staff, and the Port Authority, which makes decisions on land use and
financing.

Unlike state and Port Authority operations at QP/D, no office can be
located which takes responsibility for seeing that the needs of Providence
Harbor are met, essential services are provided, potential clients given
lone-stop' service, and that future development is fostered. There are

several reasons for this striking contrast. Providence Harbor does not
posses an identify sufficient to foster the governmental cooperation
necessary to insure the development or upgrading of rail service, highways,
channels, piers and wharves, and compatible land use. Statements of goals
for Providence Harbor, information on its operation and debates on its
prospects for the future are scarcely heard and not widely shared.

Providence Harbor is a mixture of private and public ownerships and
interests located in Providence, East Providence, Pawtucket, and Cranston.
The responsibility for the condition and use of individual shorefront
parcels and berths is with these owners, even though federal, state and
local government exerts control over activities and property improvements.
The value of the Harbor waterfront, though largely enjoyed by private and
municipal interests, has been created by the millions of federal dollars
spent for dredging and maintaining the deep channel. The public trust in
Providence Harbor does not derive from government ownership as with the
excessed Navy property, but exists because of the need for an economically
viable port industry which can provide a full return for public investments
in port facilities.

Fostering cooperation among the numerous parties concerned with Providence
Harbor's future is difficult but necessary for improving the strength of
the port industry and creating the additional tax flow needed to.support
other urban environmental quality goals. More active participation by
government in Harbor issues and development planning could insure that
environmental concerns are addressed early on to avoid costly delays in
regulatory procedures which do not serve any function in protection of
public values. More important, deeper agency and municipal understanding
of Harbor problems is essential for the coordinated and timely improvement
of state-planned supporting services, and creating a climate more favorable
to well planned private and public development initiatives.

Physical and Environmental Impj@ov@@.@@n s

There are a number of physical development issues which present difficulties
for port operation and growth. Solutions to some of these, such as debris
removal, would result in visual improvements that can have broader urban
redevelopment benefits. Others, including berth and channel dredging,
will be required simply to permit normal port operations. Improving the on-
land transportation network is a long term concern for improving the
competitive position of the Harbor.

Dredging and Dredged Materials_Dis_pos@l: A recent study by Seavey and
Pratt (1979) reports that 2.6 million cubic yards of material from,a dozen
proposed Army Corps projects in Narragansett Bay await dredging and disposal.
Disposal sites must also be found for material from many smaller private
projects. A considerable amount of dredging has been delayed in recent
years due to the lack of acceptable disposal sites'. The creation of the
channel up the Bay to Providence, which has taken more than a century, has

produced 20 million cubic yards or more of material which was used to create
land now occupied by the Port of Providence, and fill deep spots in the Bay.
About 9.8-million cubic yards were dumped at Brenton Reef in Rhode Island
Sound.

Since completion of the channel, no maintenance dredging has taken place,
and none is anticipated until 1985 at the earliest. Estimated sedimentation
rate for the channel are 1-3 cm per year (Army Corps of Engineers, 1959;
Goldberg, 1977). Private operators have.completed or proposed berth
maintenance for various depths less than 40 feet. The difficulty in pro-
ceeding with berth maintenance is the polluted condition of much of the
sediment in the upper Providence River. In several cases it is sufficiently
contaminated to raise concerns about the safety of land or water disposal.

Private operators have complained of the difficulty and expense in utilizing
piers requiring maintenance dredging. Without sites for spoil disposal,
permits for maintaining or upgrading berths are difficult to obtain. Con-
troversy over the impacts of dredged material disposal has delayed the
designation of offshore disposal sites for several years. Although an
immediate resolution to the problem is not forthcoming, Rhode Island has
renewed its efforts, in conjunction with Massachusetts and the Army Corps
of Engineers, to find a solution for dredging problems in the bay area.

-Supporting Transportion Service: The ease in which cargo can be moved
between a ship in port and its inland origin of destination is an important
aspect of the economic viability of waterborne transportation. For trucking,
a well designed and maintained road system is sufficient. Rail service
requires not only usable track but frequent service to the port for both
shippers.and receivers. Both state and federal government has a major role
to play in determining the level of service provided to Providence Harbor
through long range highway planning and construction programs, track
rehabilitation and participation in the national debate over the.future of
Conrail.

The west si'de of Providence Harbor is served by 1-95 a north-south limited
access route, and 1-195 an east bound route. Improved access to western
Rhode Island and Connecticut would be provided by proposed Route 1-84
which has been the subject of considerable controversy and delay for several
years. The industrially zoned eastern side of the Harbor presently lacks
adequate highway service. A proposed industrial highway, parallel to the
Providence and Worcester rail line between Pawtucket and Wilkes Barre
Pier is presently in the earliest planning stage at the Department of
Transportation. Its construction is favored by a draft waterfront plan
prepared by the City of East Providence. At the current pace, construction
would not commence for several years.

Rail service is provided to the western Harbor by Conrail through its
Harbor Junction spur, and along the east bay by the Providence and
Worcester Railroad. Throughout New England, rail freight has declined,
largely due to losses to other modes of transport, principally trucking.

A decline in rail service quality, for example the lower frequency of trips
and larger minimum shipment sizes, forces shippers to use other more expen-
sive modes which has resulted in a.drop in demand for rail freight forcing
the rail road to cut service further, including track maintenance. The long-
range picture for Providence Harbor could include the creation of new
activity, in goods moved in and out of the port-via rail links to a hinter-
land extending as far inland as the midwest. Conrail presently operates
major east-west routes between New England and the midwest which runs
through the midsection of Massachusetts. The Providence and Worcester Rail-
road provides a separate link to that route via Worcester, and in addition
can bypass Conrail through the Boston and Maine track running through the
upper section of Massachusetts to New York. This means that with the con-
struction of the wharf below Wilkes Barre Pier competitive direct access to
a large hinterland would exist through Providence Harbor.

The resolution of several near-term difficulties clouds this possible future.
The P & W proposal to build a new wharf has received regulatory approval
but financing and construction remains uncertain while project costs
escalate. Without the facility, the rail link remains only potentially
valuable. P & W's reputation as a well-run and profit-making railroad has
served to highlight the problems Conrail faces both at the National and
local level. Currently, Conrail depends on federal subsidies administered
through the U.S. Railway Administration. The entire operation is now under
scrutiny by Congress, which will have a major role in deciding the company's
future and the level of service provided to New England, The outcome of
this process is not at all clear. In addition, members of the Rhode
Island Congressional delegation and the director of the State Department of
Transportion are promoting legislation that would speed the transfer of
Conrail operated spur lines to a private firm, generally presumed to be P & W.
Officials responsible for Conrail operations in Rhode Island have stated
that the company has no intention of giving up these spur operations,
and would be interested in upgrading service to the Port of Providence if
a large user of rail service existed.

The transportation needs of Providence Harbor must be carefully defined and
articulated so that they will guide and perhaps expedite transportation
improvements. Harbor interests must be considered in the development of a
state position on both the oversight of Conrail and the performance of
the rail roads in the state. Highway improvements should,likewise be
viewed as an economic development investment.

Debris Removal; As the urban waterfront developed and changed in this cen-
tury, a legacy of abandoned piers, wrecked vessels, rubbish, fill and other
debris was left behind. The Army Corps of Engineers estimates that 26,000
cubic yards of material require removal. About 43 percent would be produced
by dilapidated waterfront structures and 35 percent would be wrecked
vessels (Army Corps of Engineers, 1978). Although debris is not a major
problem for port industry development it creates an unsightly and ultimately
important obstacle for many potential commercial, residential, or recrea-
tional uses. Any solution to this issue will require port participation as
well as the state and federal efforts as discussed in more detail in
Chapter 4.

A Develo ment Strategy for Providence Harbor

State government has An import .ant responsibility for assuring that public
economic and urban environmental quality goals a*re achieved. State
participation cannot solve fundamental financial and market problems, which
are the domain primarily of the private sector. However, government is
well suited to overcoming many other obstacles by creating an improved
environment where conflicting public priorities can be resolved, action can
be taken on areas of public responsibility which affect the private sector
and legitimate needs for improved supporting services met. The following
steps would expand public involvement in Providence Harbor for the purpose
first of building a degree of mutual understanding and trust among various
actors which then can be translated into a more specific agenda for action.

1. Establishing a Climate for Progress in Harbor Deyflopmeat. Considerable
misinformation and misunderstanding impedes the initiation of cooperative
action among municipalities, state agencies and private interests. Some
fundamental disagreements may exist which no amount of information or dis-
cussion will overcome. However, the boundaries of common interest and con-
cern have barely been tested. The private sector is ill equipped to
resolve public disputes which introduce additional uncertainty to their
Financial plans. Municipalities may have so much difficulty in finding
agreement on how to cope with their own problems that cooperative initiatives
are precluded. The state, which has already recognized its own responsibility
as well as some of the needs for Harbor planning, is strategically in the
best position to provide the initial guidance in strengthening the economic
potential of the Harbor through public and private discussion sessions that
would develop, in greater depth and precision than presented here, a full
understanding of Harbor needs and opportunities. Appropriate roles for the
state would be identified in this process.

2. Establishing a Framework for Progress. Following an initial effort to
demo-n'strate concern, identify needs and se'lect areas where state involvement
would be most valuable, a more formal public commitment to Providence Harbor
should be developed., The fir st element should be a carefully executed
economic and operational analysis of port activity in the Harbor by a well-
qualified organization in conjunction with ongoing work on institutional
considerations by the Intergovernmental Policy Analysis Group, the New
England River Basins Commission and the traffic safety study by the Coast
Guard. A coordinated program to revise and expand state policy on
Providence Harbor should be initiated parallel to analytical efforts to serve
as a focal point for constructive public attention to Harbor needs.

3. Development Tools. Initiatives for shorefront land redevelopment must
come from municipalities. However, the changing role of the federal'govern-
ment in supporting such efforts has both increased competition for funds
and pointed out the need for developing more sophisticated proposals which
are in fact a mix of public and private funds. The state can encourage and
and support such efforts by helping municipalities develop their ability to
engage in Harbor related redevelopment efforts. Several specific steps
should be considered at the:state level to enhance the efforts of Upper
Bay municipalities. Funds from the New England Regional Commission economic

grant could be targeted to Harbor needs. The Providence-Pawtucket-East
Providence area could pursue the creation of an Economic Development
District, which would qualify it for an additional 10 percentage points
on public works funding from the federal Economic Development Administra-
tion. The establishment of an office of federal-state relations, which has
been very successful in Massachusetts, would improve the ability of communi-
ties to obtain a fair share of funds from federal programs. Finally,
legislation could be introduced enabling communities to suspend property
taxes, similar to the Massachusetts 121-A program, to streamline.the pro-
cess of relieving the initial burden of real estate taxes for costly new
private developments.

4. A Management Str Iucture for the Harbor. The concept of a Harbor Authority
is not new and receives some support in both the public and private sector.
It is an outgrowth of the widely recognized need for more autonomy for
the Port of Providence which is presently operated by the City of Providence.
Some of the functions of an authority or association would be to coordinate
fire protection and safety, promote port development and work to improve
port facilities and supporting services. The vehicle would be either a
new .organization or an expansion of the Rhode Island Port Authority.
Creating such a mechanism could occur only after the need is demonstrated
and broad support obtained. The three steps outlined above would provide
the essential groundwork for this final development.

REFERENCES

Alexander, L. 1966. Nar ragansett Bay: A Marine Use Profile. Final Report.
U.S. Navy Office of Naval Research. Geographic Branch.

City of East Providence, Department of Planning and Urban Development. 1974.
Land Use Analysis: 1973,

City of East Providence, Department of Planning and Urban Development. 1980.
Waterfront Guide Plan for the City of East Providence. Unpublished
Draft.

City of Providence Public Library. no date. The Development of the Providence
Highway Pattern. Unpublished manuscript. Providence, R.I.

City of Providence, Department of Planning and Urban Development. 1978. Land
Use Comparison, 1975.

City of Providence, Finance Department. 1980. Revenues and Expenditures,
Port of Providence. Personal Communication.

Goldberg, E.D. et al. 1977. Pollution History of Narragansett Bay as
Recorded in its Sediments. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science,
Volume 5: 549-561.

11arbridge House, Inc. 1976. Industrial and Commercial Marketability of
Surplus Properties in Rhode Island. Prepared for Rhode Island Department
of Economic Development. Boston, Mass.

Lee Pare and Assoc. 1976. Environmental Assessment Report, Construction
and Operation of Quay in the Providence River at Wilkesbarre Pier,
Providence, R.I. Prepared for U.S..Army Corps of Engineers, Permits
Division, Waltham, Mass.

McLaughlin, W. 1978. Rhode Island: A History. W.W. Norton and Company,
New York.

Parkman, A. 1978. Army Engineers in New England. The Military and Civil
work of the Corps of Engineers, New England Division. Waltham,
Mass.

Providence Waterfront Development Project. 1978. Unpublished detailed
inventory of land use characteristics in 9 sub-areas. Providence,
R.I.

Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council. 1977, Rhode Island
Coastal Resources Management Plan. Providence, R.I.

Rhode Island Department of Economic Development. Various dates. Basic
Economic Statistics. Providence, R.I.

Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program. 1975. Rhode Island State Rail
Plan. Report Number 27. Providence, R.I.

Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program. 1975. Rhode Island Transporta-
tion Plan 1990. Report Number 19. Providence, R.I..

Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program. 1975. State Land Use Policies
and Plan. Report Number 27. Providence, R.I.

Rhode Island Statewide Planning Pro gram. 1978. Land Zoned for Industrial
Use: Inventory and Analysis. Technical Paper Number 76, First update.

Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program. 1979. Annual Report, Fiscal
Year 1979.

Seavey, G.L. and S.D. Pratt. 1979. The Disposal of Dredged Material in
Rhode Island. Marine Technical Report 72. Coastal Resources Center,
University of Rhode Island, Kingston, R.I.

Temple, Barker and Sloane. 1980.
New England Railroad Freight Traffic. New England Regional Commission,
Boston, Mass.

Torchia, R. Remarks to Providence River:__Help Turn the Tide a meeting
sponsored by Save Ch_@_`B`ay. July 17, 1980. unpublished. Providence, R.I.

United States Army Corps of Engineers. Annual. Waterborne Commerce of
the United States. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division. 1959. Effects
of Lower Bay Barriers on Salinities, Shoaling, and Pollution in
Narragansett Bay, in Hurricane Damage Control, Narragansett Bay and
Vicinity. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division. 1962.
Providence River and Harbor, Survey (Review of Reports). Waltham,
Mass.

United States Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division. 1978.
Providence River and Harbor and Seekonk River Debris Study. Feasibility
Report. Waltham, Mass.

United States Department of Commerce,', Bureau of the Census. 1979. Domestic,
and International Transportation of U.S. Foreign Trade: 1976. Part A,
Exports and Part B, Imports. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.

United States Department of Commerce, Maritime Administration. 1978.
National Trade/Vessel Analysis Reports. Washington, D.C.

United States Department of Commerce, Maritime Administration. 1978a.
Economic Impact of the U.S. Port Industry. U.S. Government Printing
Office. Washington, D.C.

United States Department of Commerce, Maritime Administration. 1980.
United States Port Development Expenditure Survey. U.S. Government
Printing Office. Washington, D.C.

United States Railway Association and Federal Railroad Administration. 1979.
Alternatives for Conrail. Joint Staff Report.

4 Recreation

INTRODUCTION

The shortage of outdoor recreation opportunities in Upper Narragansett Bay
communities has long been recognized by state and local officials. The
lack of funds for acquiring, developing, and maintaining new facilities
remains a principal roadblock to filling those needs. The Upper Bay has
historically serv'ed as a major recreation resource to the burgeoning
urban population as well as visitors from out of state, providing hotel
accommodations, summer cottages, boating, swimming, shellfishing, camping,
restaurants and other amusement opportunities. Urban pollution and the
growth of suburbs in this century have greatly reduced the accessability
and quality of the urban waterfront. However, in view of the financial
constraints upon public recreation planning and development, the renewal
of some of these historic opportunities must not be overlooked. Shoreline
access in East Providence would be greatly enhanced by reuse of the state
owned railroad corridor as a bikeway and linear park. Solutions to the
dredging statement will lead to increased private investment in much needed
marina and boating facilities. Removal of shoreline debris, greater
concern for protecting or restoring natural features and efforts to achieve
water quality improvements will all contribute to recapturing recreation
opportunities which have been lost. Positive government initiatives which
demonstrate commitment to urban needs are an essential part of winning
public support for financing improvement programs.

RECREATION NEEDS OF URBX4 RESIDENTS

More than half of the people in Rhode Island live in the eight communi-
ties surrounding Upper Narragansett Bay. Like urban residents throughout
the United States, the people of metropolitan Providence suffer an acute
shortage of close-to-home recreation opportunities. Recent national and
state studies have pointed out the extent of this shortfall, and characterize
the basic needs which remain unfilled. The emphasis placed on water related
activities points out the essential contribution which the Upper Bay could
make toward fulfilling unmet demand.

The-National Urban Recreational Study released in 1978 by the Department
of Interior is the first nation-wide analysis of urban recreation. The
major findings of that*effort merit reiteration here.

People in all urban areas want a well-balanced system of urban
recreation opportunities which includes close-to-home neighborhood
facilities and programs for all segments of the population. A wide
variety of open space areas with substantial scenic, cultural,
environmental, agricultural, and recreational values remain in and

near our cities. While threats to remaining open space areas due to
continued urban expansion into the countryside are very real,
acquisition of these areas can meet only a small portion of total
recreation needs. The greatest urban recreation deficiencies for
land and facilities exist in the inner cores of the nation's largest
cities.

Lack of coordination among recreation providers at every level
of government is a serious barrier to more ef f icient and responsive
urban-recreation programs. Existing and potential recreation
resources are not being fully utilized. Good management, well-
trained staff, and adequate financial support are the keys to good
recreation services.

Field studies of 17 highly populated urban areas indicated that "most
community residents and local park and recreation officials gave higher
priority to development and operation of community and neighborhood parks
than to acquisition of large acreages on the urban fringe."

The federal government has played an important role in financing recrea-
tion. The, Urban Recreation-, @tdy.observes:

As local dollars for parks and recreation become more scarce,
localities have turned for help, not to the States but to the
Federal Government. (However) no coherent national urban policy
exists that considers urban recreation. Current national recrea-
tion programs do not effectively address priority open space and
recreation needs of urban areas.

Despite these shortcomings at the federal level, the Land and Water Conserva-
tion Fund requires each state to prepare a comprehensive Outdoor Recreation
Plan. Municipalities must also prepare local plans in order to be eligible
for matching funds for facility acquisition. The Rhode Island recreation
plan was based upon survey information about recreation demand And supply
in the state. Major shortfalls werenoted for the Metropolitan region.

Based on data collected in 1974 by the Statewide Planning Program the
five most popular in-state activities were: salt water swimming, fresh-
water swimming, sightseeing, picknicking, and outdoor games. The level of
participation in recreation activities was found to be restricted by
income and accessibility. In addition, people tend to travel to the nearest
source of opportunity, a fact confirmed in the nationwide study cited
above. Estimates have been made by Statewide Planning of the balance of
demand with supply of facilities in Rhode Island. Demand greatly exceeds
supply in the East and West metropolitan regions, which includes the Upper
Bay communities plus North Providence, Johnston and West Warwick (Table 4-1).
Shortgages exist for all activities except golf. However, on a statewide
basis, only two of fourteen surveyed activities showed a deficiency
(picnicking and tennis).

Table 4-1. Deficiencies in Recreation Opportunities Expressed by Total
Demand as a Percentage of Supply

East Metropolitan West Metropolitan

Salt water swimming 95 118
Picnicking 200 544
Freshwater swimming 267 225
Tennis 69 202
Golf 30 80

Source: Statewide Planning Program, 1.976.

The state's approach to meeting these needs in the metropolitan region is
the eventual completion of a ring of major parks on the urban fringe
(Figure 4-1). These include developed parks such as Goddard, Colt and
Lincoln Woods which are slated for upgrading, and undeveloped properties
such as Snake Den, and Curran. The parks vary in distance from five to
fifteen miles away from the center of Providence. In addition, the state
owns and maintains a number of smaller parks and reservations within the
metropolitan area, for example Ten Mile River, Squantum Woods, Haines
Memorial and Salter Grove. The Bay Islands Park is expected to draw
.patronage from urban communities.

Municipalities also have prepared recreation plans which define problems
and develop strategies for meeting local needs. The recreation plans of
Upper Bay communities identify municipal needs in part by comparing a
modified national or state acreage standard with an inventory of local
facilities. Recommendations are then made for a program of acquisition,
rehabilitation and maintenance. An important concern of all cities is
the adequacy, distribution and condition of neighborhood parks, playgrounds,
playing fields and major parks. Attention is usually given to the
availability of a range-of activities including fishing, swimming, and
boating and the-needs of special groups such as the elderly and handicapped.
Less densely populated cities such as Warwick and East Providence have
also exhibited concern for protecting conservation and open spaces.

One indicator of the seriousness of public commitment to recreational
goals is government expenditures for parks and recreation programs. State
and local spending on parks and recreation in Rhode Island was $14.22 per
capita in fiscal year 1977, 37 percent lower than the national average
(Bureau of the Census, 1979). As a result the state ranked 42 out of,the
50 states ina total government expenditures. The proportion of direct
general expenditure for recreation places Rhode Island in the.middle of
northeastern coastal states (Table 4-2).

Figure 4-1. The Metropolitan Park System

Lincoln
Wood

Ten Mile
146 River
WTUCKET'!

Snak@ 0 1 2 3
Den MILES
PROVIDENCE 1-195
AST

PROVID C
1-295 17-

/*
CRANSTON

J.L.
Curran

BARRINGTON WARREN
WARWICK

BRISTOL

Colt

zrl
o0dard
emorial

Table 4-2. Comparison of RecreationSpend.ing of Northeastern States, FY 78

Recreation as a percentage of a
state's, direct general expendi-
tures

New York 2.8
Maryland 1.4
New Hampsfiire .99
Ifliode [sland .79
Maine .66
Plassacliusetts .62
Connecticut .25

Source: Bureau of the Census, 1979.

However, Upper Bay municipalities are well below the national average for
cities of their size in parks and recreation spending (Table 4-3).

Table 4-3. Comparison of Municipal Recreation Spending
With National Averages for Cities of Similar Size, FY 1978

Percent of Direct
Per Capita Expenditures

National. National
Average Actual Average Actual

Providence 24.92 13.08 5.63 2.04
PZ.1WtUcket 22.07 12.67 5.78 1.98
Warwick 22.07 7.36 5.78 1.16
Cranston .22.07 6.30 5.78 1.07

Source: Bureau of the Census', 1979.

Some municipalities, such as Warwick, have had success in gaining approval
for local recreation bond referenda. However, the state has not had a
major recreation bond issue approved since 1965 when the Green Acres pro-
gram was authorized.

The challenge of supplying adequate urban outdoor recreation is heighted by
the general lack of financial support for both existing and new programs.
Many opportunities do exist, but their success will depend on greater
cooperation by the state, municipalities and the private sector. In
addition, a more energetic approach to addressing urban recreation concerns
can only help build the interest and enthusiasm required to attract public
and private.funds.

RECREATION ALONG THE UPPER BAY SHORE

Providence is a center of recreation simply by virtue of the diversity of
services and activities located in a compact area. Providence provides
theatre, art, music, shopping, museums, athletic clubs, special events,
restaurants, ethnic neighborhoods and historic sites and districts which
are enjoyed by residents of the city and the state. However, urban dwellers
also require active and passive recreation in an outdoor setting which
is difficult to provide due to acquisition, development and maintenance
costs.

Upper Narragansett Bay and the Seekonk and Providence Rivers form the
largest expanse of open space in the Providence metropolitan region.
During the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, the Upper Bay was
heavily used for recreation. Excursion boats travelled the Bay landing
passengers at several locations, including Fields Point, for shore dinners.
Restaurants, dinner halls, amusement parks, casinos, hotels and clusters
of summer cottages were prominant features of the shore. In this century,
urbanization has overtaken many of these facilities. The demise of the
steamboat cruise was precipitated by the rapid adoption of the automobile
as a means of transport and recreation.

The Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Program identified four
principal coastal recreation opportunities: shoreline access, parks,
beaches, and recreational boating. All of-these exist in the upper Bay.
Half of the sites are privately owned, although they incorporate only 31
percent of waterfront recreation land area. The state owns nine sites com-
prising about 41 percent of all recreational land, while municipalities
control 20 sites representing 28 percent of land area. The distribution
of coastal recreation sites is heavily weighted toward the lower half of
the Upper Bay. The four most heavily developed communities, Providence,
East Providence, Pawtucket and Cranston, possess only about one fourth of
the total recreation acreage. The problems of inadequate distribution
appears to be an important concern for each type of outdoor recreation.

Shoreline Access

The state holds title to the foreshore, defined as land seaward of the
mean high water line, and privdes its residents with a constitutional
guarantee to lateral access along the shore. This is to insure that Rhode
Islanders can "enjoy and freely exercise all the rights of fishery, and
the privileges of the shore" (Article I, Section 17, R.I. Constitution).
As a practical matter, however, there must be access across the upland to
the water's edge in order to make shorefront recreation possible. Upper
Bay communities vary considerably in the amount of access which the
public has to the shoreline. According to work conducted by the Public
Rights of Way Commission in 1971, only 34 state owned rights of way, in
addition to state parks, were known to. exist, with none present in Cranston,
Providence, Pawtucket, and the upper half of East@Providence.

The,Rhode Island legislature gave the Coastal Resources Management Council
the task of researching and designating state-owned;points of access to
tidal waters in 1977. Since then, the CRMC subcommittee on Rights of Way

has been directing legal research and conducting public hearings to develop
the necessary documentation, a process that occasionally uncovers local
controversy. Thirteen rights of way have been officially designated in.
the Upper Bay communities of East Providence, with Warwick, Barrington,
Bristol and Warren in earlier phases of the program.

Municipalities also own rights of way. These consist of parks and
beaches, the platted but undeveloped ends o.f streets which intersect the
shoreline, and lots obtained due to non-payment of taxes. The amount
of access varies among communities. Warwick, with a shoreline of 38 miles,
has identified 319 access points while East Providence, has counted only
50 locations for public access along its 14.4 miles of shore. The numbe 'r
of designated and developed access ways is considerably less than these
totals.

Shore access in Upper Bay communities is confronted by several difficulties.
The distribution of presently known sites is uneven and does not match
neighborhood needs. Many of the known sites may not have been reached,
publicly identified or physically established. Proper development and
maintenance of state and local rights of way requires the commitment of
capital and operating funds which are not easy to obtain. Abutting property
owners, rather than cooperating to maintain them, often choose @o obstruct
rights of way to limit pedestrian traffic near their property or prevent
people from parking along the street near the access point.

Parkland

There are-approximately 1500 acres of parkland along the Upper Bay shore,
three-fourths of which is publicly owned (Table 4-4) (Figure 4-2). Colt
State Park in Bristol, Rhode Island Country Club in Barrington, and Max
Read Field in Pawtucket are the only-parcels over 100 acres each, and
comprise 54 percent of the total. The nature of shorefront parks varies
considerably, including totlots, linear parks, picnic groves, scenic over-
looks, playing fields, and private clubs. The most notable features of
their distribution are irregularity and scarcity. A large portion of the
west shore of the Seekonk River is protected as open space for public
access and as cemetary and hospital grounds. The eastern shore is largely
industrial and presently has no significant facility except in Pawtucket.
The Providence River, which enters Upper Narragansett Bay at Conimicut
Point has very little park land on either shore. The port industry and
private residences occupy the western shore, and oil terminals, a rail
line and residences are crowded along the eastern shore. A few large
facilities exist around the Upper Bay, including Conimicut Point, Rocky
Point Park, and Colt State Park. Rumstick Point is a conservation area
which is, for practical purposes, inaccessible to the public.

Beaches

There are eleven recreational beaches along the urban waterfront
(Table 4-5). Nearly all of these are south of Conimicut Point or along
the Barrington and Warren Rivers (Figure 4-3). Narragansett Terrace, also
known as Bullock Neck, contains a private beach. Although only.6 of the

Figure 4-2. Parkland

-15 PAWTUCKET
13-7

13-8
MILES
r-J PROVIDENCE 3-9
EAST
13
State
PROVIDENCE\
o Municipal
13-8
14-3 Private
14-4
4-17

14-19 14-9
13i
114-8
CRANSTON 3-6
13-@8 :(4-2 1 11

9-48
W A RW I C K BARRINGTON VRI N
19-2

19-40

19-

19-26

19-38

19-1
19-24
-----------------

Table 4-4. Parks and Open Space Along the Upper Narragansett
Bay Shore

A,c i@e
P-ercent of Total

liar ing, ton
I-9-28 Rhode -Island Country Club (P) 227
14-9 Knuckum Hill (M) 75
14-2 Haines State Park (S) 73
19-3 Rumstick Point (S) 33
14-1 Hundred Acre Cove (S) 23
19-48 Latham Avenue Park (M) 4
14-8 Ormond Drive Park (M) .1
14-11 Walker Farm (M) 62
498 32.4

Bristol

19-1 Colt State Park (S) .459
19-24 Rockwell Park (M) 1
460 30.0

Cranston

13-1 Stillhouse Cove (S) 2.7
13-61 Pawtuxet Cove (M) 1.2
3.9 .3

East Providence

14-20 Crescent Park (T) 50
13-18 Veteran's Memorial Parkway (S) 44.1
14-3 Squantum. Woods (S) 29
14-19 Bullocks Point Park (M) 14
14-17 Boyden Heights (P) 10
.14-14 Squantum, Cliff (P) 7.5
14-21 Sabin Point Park (M) 4
152.6 10.6

Pawtucket

13-59 Max Reed Field (M) 153.0
13-7 Seekonk River Reservation (S) 15.8
168.8 11.0

Providence

13-88 Blackstone Park (M) 45.4
13-90 India Point Park (M) 13.0
13-69 Gano Street Field (M) 4.1
4.0

Warwick

19-26 Rocky Point Park (P) 76.0
19-40 Conimicut Point (M) 14.4
13-8 Salter Grove (S) 8.5
19-38 Our Lady of Providence (P) 70
168.9 11.0

Source: R.I. Statewide Planning Program; 1976.

Figure 4-3. Beaches

PAWTUCKET

0 1 2 3

MILES
PROVIDENCE
EAST State
PROVIDENCE\ 0 Municipal

Private

CRANSTON .-., k.

9-32

J 19-36
19 2
BAR INOT@ ARREN
W A R W I C K GTON 19-3
19-33 -

19-42
19-20
19-2
19-28 B R I S T 0 L

'TABLE 4-5

BEACHES

Linear Feet of Beach Acreage

Barrington

19-44 Town Beach (M) 1000 1.3
19-33 Beach Road (P) 500
19-29 Barrington Yacht Club (P) 300
19-32 Meadowbrook (P) 300
2100

Bristol

19-28 Town Beach (M) 695 27
19-20 Narragansett Heights (P) 115
.2

East Providence

19-36 Narragansett Terrace Park (P) 550

Pawtucket

Providence

Warren

19-3 Warren Town Beach 500 2.3

Warwick

19-40 Conimicut (M) 1000
19-26 Rocky Point (P) 200
19-42 Bay Side Beach 2800
19-2 Longmeadow Beach Access --
.6

Public 5895
Private 1965

Source: R.I. Statewide Planning Program, 1976.

11 sites are publicly owned, they comprise 75 percent of the 7860 linear
feet of sandy beach in the Upper Bay. A geological survey of the Upper Bay
shoreline revealed that much more of the shore can be classified as beach.
However, relatively little is maintained for recreation, in good part
because of the poor quality of the water which makes swimming unsafe or
aesthetically unpleasing.

Recreational Boating_

Boating ranked fifth in participation out of eighteen activities surveyed
by Statewide Planning and is expected to exhibit the greatest increase in
participation between 1980 and 2000. It is difficult to determine-the
number of boats used in coastal waters, since much of the fleet is
unregistered and is transported by trailer. An estimate by Collins and
Sedgwick (1979) indicates that in 1978, the Rhode Island fleet was composed
of 33,247 boats. They observe 'that a major part of boating takes place in
Rhode Island's coastal waters, since access to lakes, ponds and streams is
limited. One third of the fleet is stored in the water, while most boats
.larger than 18 feet occupy space at marinas.

Of the approximately 7500 marina slips identified in 1978, only 18
percent were located in Upper Narragansett Bay. Most of these are clustered
in a few areas, principally Edgewood, Pawtuxet Cove, Bullock Cove,
Warren River, and Bristol Harbor. Table 4-6 is a list of marinas and yacht
clubs and the approximate number of slips at each operation. Figure 4-4
indicates the location of these facilities as well as state and municipal
boat ramps. Only three of these opera t ions,provide a full range of services.
It is not possible to develop accurate data on marina capacity for several
reasons.- A marina expands or loses slips depending on development plans,
permits, and storm damage. For example, a marina located in Cranston at
the Providence border suffered such extensive storm and icedamage that the
operator was forced to abandon the site. Marina capacity can also vary
depending on the clientel being.served. Larger sail and power boats
may occupy dock space that conceivably could service a greater number of
small boats. Some facilities allocate space to commercial quahoging
boats as well. Moorings are also an important way in which boat owners
store their craft, but there is no estimate of their numbers. The general
location of public boat launching ramps is provided in Figure 4-4. Most
marinas and yacht clubs also have one or more ramps for private use.

Growth in the number of recreational boats has been substantial, with an
annual rate of 7 percent overall. Wet-stored boats have increased at 3.5
to 4 percent annually with growth of 8.6 to 9 percent occurring in the .
trailerable fleet (Collins and Sedgwick, 1979)., However, slips and ramps
have not been developed or maintained to adequately service this demand.
The Providence and Seekonk Rivers have the potential for filling some of
the unmet demand. In addition,several Upper Bay locations have sufficient
land and water to accommodate expanded marina operations.

Figure 4-4. Recreational Boating

PAWTUCKET
13-7

/* 0 1 2 3

MILES
,-'j PROVIDENCE
1-3-4 EAST State
13 8. 13-50
PROVIDENCE\ 0 Municipal

Private

CRANSTON 13-4
13-49 14- 14-6
14-5 9-37
9-35

BARRINGTON A R R E N
WARWICK

B R I S T 0 L

-----------

Table 4-6. Recreational Boating

Acreage

Barrington

14-6 Cove Haven.Marina 250 6.0
19-37 Lavin's Marina 168 1 2.3
19-31 Stanley's Boatyard 140 5.3
19-30 Striper Marina 116 1 3.5
19-29 Barrington Yacht Club 18 1 84.0

Bristol

19-32 Municipal Dock 70 1 3.0
.19-16 Bristol Marine 18 1
19-13 Bristol Yacht Club 2
19-17 Usher Cove Marsh 2

Cranston

13-12 Port Edgewood 120 1
13-7 Pawtuxet Cove Marina 107 1 .3
13-11 Pawtuxet Yacht Club 85 1
13-6 Rhode Island Yacht Club 50 1 .2
13-5 Edgewood Yacht Club 40 1 .5
13-8 Edgewood Marine 22
13-47 Pawtuxet Boat Launch Ramp 1

East Providence

19-35 Bullock Point Marina 73 1 1.0
14-5 Narragansett Terace Marina 37 3 .4
13-50 Oyster House 36 1 1.4
14-9 Narragansett Terrace Yacht
Club 7
13-87 Bold Point 1 2.1

Pawtucket

13-17 State Pier #2 75

Providence

13-45 Marine Services 6 1

Warren

19-5 Blount Seafood 11
19-2 Ressker Enterprises 20
19-3 Booth Marina 3
19-4 Hitchcock Marina

Warwick

13-48 Pettis Marina 32
13-49 Asprey Boatyard

Source; R.I. Statewide Planning Program, 1976; Collins and Sedgwick, 1979.

URBAN WATERFRONT RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES

Introduction

The water and shoreline of the Upper Bay possesses considerable untapped
potential for satisfying the outdoor recreation needs of urban residents.
State and municipal recreation plans and studies have identified a number of
ideas for increasing shoreline access, the quantity and quality of parks
and fostering recreational boating facilities. However, recovering the
urban shore for recreation is not easy. Several difficulties have slowed
progress toward implementing the many plans. The scarcity of suitable
shorefront property makes acquisition costs extremely high. State and
local governments suffer from a shortage of funds to develop and properly
maintain public parks and recreation sites. Environmental problems such as
poor water quality and debris along the shore serve as powerful visual
detractions in some areas. Several major opportunities currently exist
for increasing public access to the waterfront for recreation. These
include management and planning for places with recreation and conserva-
tion value, the establishment of a linear park from Bristol to Providence
along the state owned rail right of way, improvements for recreational
boating, and debris removal in the water and slong the shore.

Protecting Sites with Recreation and Conservation Values

Very little of the Upper Bay shoreline, particularly its natural and land-
scaped features is available-for public use. Private residential and
industrial development has made the Bay invisible to most of the people
living near it. Yet when viewed from the water, many segments of the Upper
Bay shoreline are surprisingly attractive and have retained a great deal
of their natural character. This is often in striking contrast to the
dense urban development just a short distance inland. Shoreline features
which served historically as constraints to development, such as bluffs,
coves, tributary streams and wetlands have over time become important
amenities to the neighborhoods which they border. Many structures and
districts of historic value and cultural interest survive as well. Pro-
viding sufficient access to the metropolitan areats principal open space
resource, the Bay, protecting neighborhood character and a dwindling
stock of natural open areas are critical Upper Bay recreation issues.
Unfortunately, they appear to be among the most difficult to resolve.

Acquisition of shorefront land by the state or a .municipality is the most
direct means of assuring public access to the water. Some major
undeveloped parcels still exist along the Upper Bay, which would be suitable
for recreational use. Donations and lots forfeited due to unpaid taxes
contribute to government acquisition programs. However, broadly based
financial support does not exist for acquisition programs. Most of the
recreation land obtained by the Department of Environmental Management in
Narragansett Bay has been the result of transfers of surplus Navy land.
Both state and local agencies suffer from a scarcity of funds for
developing and managing land already under their control. The Federal
Land and Water Conservation Fund is administered by the Heritage Conserva-
tion and Recreation Service and is supported by revenues from Outer Conti-
nental Shelf Development. This could be a valuable source of funds,

except that the local matching share *requirement is 50 percent of total
project costs a proporation which has detered many local initiatives.
This program, along with the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program
are victims of drastic budget'recessions in Fiscal 1980, and budget reduc-
tions in Fiscal 1981 (Northeast Memo, Spring 1980, HCRS). These federal
actions are part of a broad national pattern of retrenchment which is
forcing local and state government to either develop new strategies for
meeting urban recreation needs, or postpone plans and neglect existing
facilities.

Most*of the places for summer recreation, including cottages, restaurants,
dinner halls, hotels, parks, camps, and open land which had been operating
at the end of the 19th century have been replaced by permanent residential
developments in this century. Among the last of these to disappear is
Crescent Park, a 55-acre facility in the Riverside section of East Providence.
The circumstances surrounding its reuse illustrates the complexity of
issues involved in urban waterfront planning. The amusement park operated
from 1886 until the latter.1970s and is noteworthy for the carousel
designed by Charles Laoff which has been well preserved, and the fact that
it was one of the few widely accessible recreation sites in the Upper
Bay. The Rhode Island Historical Preservation Commission, in its 1976
study of East Providence, was aware of the impending change in the status
of the park, and urged that the city seek its inclusion in the Bay Islands
Park System. The report states: 11circumstances make it quite unlikely that
Crescent Park will continue in its.present capacity for more than a few
years, making it highly probable that East Providence will lose one of its
finest recreational facilities."

Crescent Park was purchased by the City of East Providence which is selling
the property to a real estate development company seeking to build 200
luxury units and 250 rental units for the elderly. Controversy has
surrounded this transaction. Under@the plan approved by the City Council,
easements on 23 acres on both the eastern and western parts of the site,
which abut Bullocks Cove and the Bay respectively, would be granted by the
City, including a 3.5 acre parcel where the carousel is located. Land along
Bullocks Cove is slated for development as a marina. A citizens group,
Save Our Carousel, has pursued legal action to force the City to retain
the entire western portion of the property. The citizens plan envisions
relocating the Carousel adjacent to the present shore dinner hall and.
developing the entire 11 acre site for various recreation purposes.

The state is unable to protect any portion of Crescent Park through
acquisition even if it wished to do so. Recreation land acquisition
is financed by general obligation bonds subject to voter approval. State
referenda has been the principal means of funding the state acquisition
program. The most recent recreational development bond referendum was
narrowly rejected in 1978. The restricted nature of these bonds, and
uncertainty about voter approval, makes'them a difficult mechanism for
implementing state and local recreation plans. According to the Statewide
Planning Program, reliance on bonds "contributes to the state's continued
inability to match the maximum available federal funds allocated to Rhode
Island and has been a major detriment to the.progress of recreation, con-

servation and open space activities in the state." The State Comprehensive
Outdoor Recreation Plan recommends the creation of a State Recreational
Development Fund which would be supported by reallocations of the state
park fee system and annual appropriations from the general fund, for use
in providing one half of the matching federal funds needed by both
municipalities and the Department of Environmental Management. Considerable
attention woul d be given to coordinating state and local efforts, and
providing technical assistance to municipalities as part of the alloca-
tion process. This proposal has not received legislative approval.

Short of ownership, there are several import ant ways in which state and
local government can' participate in protecting and restoring coastal areas
with conservation and recreation value. Regulatory programs provide an
opportunity to influence the nature and quality of new developments as
well as curtail the degradation of established neighborhoods and their
associated natural features and cultural resources. Site specific review
of proposals for compliance with municipal ordinances, the Coastal
Resources Management Program, and federal regulations is an ongoing pro-
cess which is aimed at insuring private sector conformance with public
goals. This approach is most suitable in suburban and rural communities
where development pressures are strong and the capability to react quickly
and effectively to guide such growth is essential. In the Upper Bay,
however, few open parcels remain, consequently resolving conflicts, over
their best use, establishing priorities for coa 'stal land and water develop-
ment, and taking active steps to combat both ecological and urban
deterioration are more relevant concerns than growth management and require a
different approach.

The Coastal Program contains some important policies which could be used
in a systematic way by the Coastal Resources Management Council to promote
the preservation and restoration of natural and cultural features in the
Upper Bay. The Program itself notes that "The Council finds that it can
be highly effective in solving complex problems involving problem defini-
tion, the coordination of local, state and federal agencies, and public
involvement." Relevant policies and regulations are:

CRMC Progrz@m Section

alteration of tidal waters and coastal ponds 110.0-2 D
(which includes tributary water bodies)
alteration of shoreline systems 120.0-2 C
erosion protection measures 140.0-2 C 3
sewage treatment and solid waste disposal 310.0-2 C
debris removal 520.1@2 C
public beaches and parks 420.0-2 B
conservation and management 430.0-2 B
recreational boating 440.0-2 F
historic preservation 450.0-2 C

The key for effective use of these authorities is in defining goals and
strategies for specific areas which incorporate a full range of-management
concerns. General solutions to shoreline debris removal, pollution of
tributary streams, dredged material disposal, recreational boating facili-

85 -

ties, open space acquisition and shoreline access have thus far eluded us.
To be successful in the Upper Bay, the implementation of Coastal Program
policies must take-advantage of opportunities to coordinate private and
public activities and responsibilities when they arise in specific geo-
graphic areas. Selecting a place to focus public attention on coastal
inaaagement concerns should include consideration of the appropriate size
to generzite community interest and lead to good results within the
resoiircos available to the participating agencies.

Iiii'l[ock Cove, located between East Providence and Barrington on the
Providence River, is an example oE a residential and recreation center
in transition which could benefit from a coordinated management approach.
The forth coming sale of Crescent Park will be the basis for a surge of
private investment in multiple unit housing which will include shoreline
modifications and effects on adjacent residents. The present plans of
the City of East Providence would lead to the development of a marina at
the head of the Cove. Development of the railroad right of way for use
as a bikeway/linear park will increase public interest and access to the
Cove and Haines State Park. The Cove presently has a problem with shore-
front debris. Within a few years, boating interests are likely to seek
maintenance dredging of the channel, particularly if a new marina is
developed. Shoreline access, wetland and water quality impacts, dredged
material disposal and the cumulative effects of new development upon the
community will all be important regulatory issues as applications are
received on a piecemeal basis by the CRMC. The opportunity exists, prior
to these actions, for the creation of a thoughtful and open process
which would guide the planning and development of Bullock Cove as a
resource in order to resolve many of the environmental and neighborhood
concern which are caused by present conditions and future development.

Municipalities have developed land use control programs through zoning
and subdivision ordinances and building inspection which provide tools
for local protection of coastal recreation and natural resources. A
new tool was proposed in the 1980 legislative session which would enable
municipalities to designate and exercise special controls over scenic and
recreational rivers. It would provide a resource based approach to
reviewing developments within river preservation districts. The bill,
80H7715, was approved by the Joint Committee on the Environment but
was referred to the House Judiciary Committee and received no further
action in 1980.

East Bay Bikeway and Providence River Linear Park

After the reorganization of bankrupt Northeast railroads begun in 1973,
the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (DOT) acquired the Bristol
Secondary Track which runs between Bristol Harbor and Wilkesbarre in East
Providence. In the past several years, several different sources have
proposed the development of a linear park on the rail right of way, which
would create a bicycle/running path and greatly increased shoreline access.
The DOT is now pursuing this possibility.

The Statewide Planning Program has been studying the feasibility of using
the right of way for light rail or commuter bus sy stem serving the
communities on the east side of Upper Narragansett Bay, which would preclude
its full use as a linear park. The first element of the study, published
in April, 1980 estimated the potential demand for an enhanced mass transit
in the East Bay. Although no conclusions are drawn in the report, the
results of the analysis strongly indicate that a major public investment
to make the right of way suitable for a light rail or express bus system is
not appropriate.

A baseline forecast shows that in the year 2000, 25 percent of the 10,000
trips to Providence along the East Bay (which extends from Newport to East
Providence) will be made by bus. Under conditions of a critical energy
shortage the demand for mass transit would increase to about 40 percent
of all trips. The study reports that simply expanding existing bus service
would increase use of transit compared to the choices involving large
public investments in the rail right of way (Table 4-7).

Table 4-7. Projected East Bay Trips to Providence
Year 2000
Energy Crisis Scenario

Use of Transit Subsystem Trips

Expanded Bus Service 4190

Exclusive Bus Lane 4020

Bus Way 2420
Regular Bus Route 1600

Light Rail System 4020
Rail Trips 1280
Regular Bus Route 1740

The cost just of making the Bristol secondary track suitable for light
rail service, was estimated at $12 million in 1980. The report notes that
light rail is suitable for a ridership of 2,000 to 24,000 trips in one
direction per hour, but even under a critical energy scenario, only 1280
trips to Providence would be generated in one day.

The rail corridor, once a major barrier to waterfront access by East
Providence, could readily become a major new recreation opportunity for
the east Bay communities. The Departments of Transportation and Environ-
mental Management are presently working on a plan to create a bikeway from
Independence Park in Bristol Harbor through Colt State Park, to Burr Hill
Park in downtown Warren. A recent thesis by Suzanne Smith of the Rhode
Island School of Design examined the design potential for extending this
bikeway to Providence, a concept suggested by the City of East Providence,

in its 1975 Recreation Plan. The DOT is currently preparing to initiate
a planning study for use of the corridor as a bikeway.

A fully developed Providence River linear Park could become a major new
facility,for pleasure and commuter biking, running, skating, and walking,
and would also connect several major parks and open spaces with one another
and the shore. Sites which could be linked include the proposed Blackstone
,Canal Bikeway, Blackstone Park, India Point Park, Gano Street Field, Bold
Point, Squantum Woods, Bullocks Cove, Haines Memorial Park and Brickyard
Pond. Portions of the right of way might be suitable for recreational
fishing and boating access.

The most important argument in favor of use of the right of way for
recreation is the fact that it is already publicly owned; eliminating
land acquisition which is one of the most difficult and costly problems
of waterfront park development. Several issues are likely to present
difficulties for implementation of a plan for the linear park, including
funds for planning and development and concern about.conflicting uses of
land by abutting residential and industrial property owners and rail
interests. Given the high potential recreation value of the resource,
these concerns should not be viewed as insurmountable constraints.

-Im rovements in Recreational Boating

The private sector is the chief source of boating fa cilities and services
for the wet-stored fleet in Upper Narragansett Bay including marinas,
yacht clubs, and the numerous docks and private moorings established by
shorefront land owners. State and municipal governments have concentrated
on providing public or neighborhood access for the trailerable fleet which
accounts for three fifths of all boats in the state. State and local
government can play an important but limited role in fostering additional
private investment in new or expanded marina operations. State and local
government, however, has the major responsibility for providing boat ramps
and public access, a task which can yield only limited results in the
absence of a source of funds for capital improvements and maintenance.

The Providence and Seekonk Rivers were identified by Collins and
Sedgwick (1979) as one of the best locations for marina development.

Improved water quality and the elimination of the eyesores
along the shoreline would very likely spark interest in the
private sector, since the.Upper Bay offers one of the last areas
where a significant number of new marinas could be established.

Existing marinas in Bullocks Cove, Edgewood and Pawtuxet Cove were identi-
fied by the State "208" water quality program as possessing moderate to
high potential for-marina expansion in terms of water area and supporting
land. Barrington and Bristol were limited to a greater extent by a
shortage of land for parking and operations than other Upper Bay sites.
However, the expansion or creation of new marinas is a major challenge to
the private marina industry,because of the high acquisition and development
costs and many competing water uses. State.and municipal governments can
play a role in supporting appropriate marina developments by working to
solve some of the problems which the private sector is not in a position

to handle on its own. In particular, the removal of silt in federal
navigation channels, and the identification of suitable 'sites and
techniques for disposing of dredged material from the berths of existing
marinas require government action. Recreational boating in Pawtuxet Cove
is seriously-threatened by loss of its channel, and Bullocks Cove will be
a candidate for maintenance dredging in the near future. Most new marina
constrtiction will require at least soine dredging of a channel and
berths as well.. Governmental assistance in this area is therefore para-
mount to improve as well as maintain a healthy boating industry which meets
the state's recreational demands.

Maintenance dredging of federal navigation channels is the responsibility
of the New England Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Financing of the proposed Pawtuxet Cove project, to return that basin to
its authorized depth of 6 feet below mean low water, would be provided .
by the Corps of Engineers. However, funding for all recreation dredging
has been temporarily withheld in favor of commercial'projects by the Carter
Administration. The Pawtuxet Cove proposal calls for dredged material to
be placed adjacent to state owned property south of the Cove in order to
create a salt marsh. Dredging of berths presents marina owners with
financial and regulatory problems. The quantities which may require
removal are much smaller than for channel maintenance, but the disposal
problem is still important. Options include land disposal on the property
of the marina, removal by tracking, marsh building, and beach restoration
(Seavey and Pratt, 1979). State regulation now requires that dredged
material be tested to determine whether it can be classified as a hazardous
waste prior to trucking. Marina operators are presently resorting to onsite
storage even though land is a major constraint to the growth of their
operations. In the cases of both channel and berth dredging, filling the
need for greater public access for recreational boating on Narragansett Bay
is impeded by a lack of progress in implementing the several dredged
material disposal options which have been developed to reduce potential or
probable undesired environmental effects.

Access for Sport Fishir@@

The number and variety of fish caught on the intake screens of the South
and Manchester Street power plants demonstrates that despite chronically
polluted waters finfish species popular to sportfishermen can and do exist
throughout the Upper Bay. The available catch data for the recreational
fishery points to considerable activity in the Upper Bay already and it,
would appear that more fishing could take place if access to the water
were improved. The aesthetic values of fishing in the Upper Bay will
increase substantially when and if water quality is upgraded.

Access to fishing, however, is severely limited in the Upper Bay. At
present most fishing takes place from boats and the Upper.Bay is poor both
in marinas and public launching facilities. There are at present only
seven state owned public launching ramps serving the half million
people living in the eight Upper Bay municipalities. Many of these are
not sufficiently developed and fall far short of,the optimum requirements
for ramp facilities which calls for at least one acre for parking and
the maneuvering of trailers and cars, good road access and minimal exposure
to prevailing winds and seas (Collins and Sedgwick, 1979). In addition,

a dock along side the ramp would make boarding and taking out boats
easier and safer. The principal difficulty faced by the Department of
Environmental Management is a lack of funds for upgrading and developing
new ramps. Property acquisition is the largest factor in the expensive
process of creating new ramp sites.

Several avenues exist for overcoming the expense of purchasing launch
ramp sites. Cooperative efforts with municipalities could result in the
identification of city owned properties with ramp development potential.
For example, East Providence has already expressed its desire to develop
land it owns on Bold Point as a launching area. Providence owns a con-
siderable amount of park land along the western shore of the Seekonk
which may have potential. In Pawtuxet Cove, both the state and@the City
of Cranston own land which was slated, but never developed, for boat ramps.
Another option for ramp development is the rail right of way owned by the
Department of Transportation along the east side of the Upper Bay. A
major portion of the East Providence shoreline is occupied by the rail bed,-
which crosses several coves and passes near several parcels of publicly
owned land. The State is currently examining the potential of this right
of way for use as a bikeway.

An additional mode of access that is sorely lacking is that of readily
accessible, shoreline structures that can be used by fishermen. There
is a good deal of fishing that occurs now from bridges and piers around
the Bay but these facilities are noticeably lacking in the Upper Bay and
its coves and tributaries. Other urban centers such as Detroit which
have had success in revitalizing their urban waterfront, are encouraging
recreational use of existing piers or building new ones to serve the urban
recreational fisherman. There are numerous opportunities t.o do this in
the Upper Bay. If sufficient fish are available there is potential to
fish from Port of Providence piers, from the tank'farm flood protection
banks in East Providence, from the Fox Point barrier, from the old rail-
road bridge across the river at India Point or at Watchemoket Cove if
access could be made available and reinforcing construction carried out
where needed. There is potential to expand and encourage shorefront
fishing at such places as Rocky Point Park, Bullocks Cove, the bridges over
the Barrington and Warren Rivers, the riverfront land at the Bucklin
Point Sewage treatment plant on the Seekonk. Any way to encourage
fishing is as a multiple use of existing structures is a relatively inexpen-
sive means of enhancing the use and appreciation of the Upper Bay.

Removal of Debris

Piers, bulkheads, wharves and barges which have lost their.economic
function through abandonment, storm damage, sinking and lack of maintenance,
are a serious problem on the water- Unusable shorefront structures, dere-
lict vessels, loose wood from collapsing piers and shorefront dumps have
accumulated in the Upper Bay and Providence Harbor over several decades
and exceed 26,000 cubic yards according to a 1978 survey by the Army Corps
of Engineers, About 90 percent of this material is along the Providence
and East Providence shorelines (Table 4-8).

Table 4-8. Sources of Debris

Shorefront Derelict Loose Onshore
Structures Vessels Debris Locations

Cu. Ft. of Cu. Ft. of Cu. Ft. of
Community No. Debris No. Debris No. Debris Total

Barrington 13 2,661 0 0 4 1,900 4,561
Cranston 17 6,610 3 20,150 7 2,500 29,260
East Providence 63 143,344 22 68,835 51 44,250 256,429
Pawtucket 8 12,676 1 200 1 6,500 19,376
Providence 32 220,618 22 144,500 7 11,700 376,818
Warwick 28 3,344 5 20 6,800 13,879

161 389,253 53 237,420 90 73,MO 700,323

Study Area Drift 800
Total Study Area Debris 701,123

Drift is that floating material always present on the water surface.

Source; Army Corps of Engineers, 1978.

The Corps of Engineers has been working with municipalities since 1967
in identifying needs and plans for debris removal. In 1970 federal funds
became available on a 2/3 federal 1/3 state cost sharing basis for debris
removal. At that time, the estimated cost of the Rhode Island project
was $1.2 million, of which $400,000 would have to be provided by the
state. Rhode Island chose 'to obtain its share by going directly to
affected Upper Bay communities, and seeking contributions proportioned to
the amount of debris in areas under their jurisdiction. Providence was
asked to contribute $250,000, while Barrington asked to contribute $5,000.
Providence felt that costs should be more equitably distributed. The con-
flict was not resolved, and federal funds were withdrawn for the entire
program by the Nixon administration,in 1973.

Funds were reauthorized by Congress in 1976. The most recent.plan,
released in 1978, is based on a one-time cleanup of the entire Upper Bay
for an estimated cost of $4 million (Table 4-9). The Study notes that:

The economic forces that would normally lead to full
utilization of the prime waterfront properties, especially
within the Harbor area, have been diminished by the influence
of the cost to remove and dispose of these sources of
debris. There is also a need to reduce the losses that have
been caused by collisions between pleasure boats and floating
debris.

The Corps plan could be completed within two years. Active state participa-
tion is necessary both for providing matching funds and for identifying a
disposal site for the debris.- No progress has been made in either area.
In addition, a new difficulty is clouding the prospects of a debris pro-
ject in the near future. New language in the reauthorization act, (P.L.
94-587, � 202) states that:

Non-federal interests in future project development... shall
be required to recover the full cost of drift or debris removal
'from any identified owner of piers or other potential sources
of drift or debris, or to repair such sources so that they no
longer create a potential of drift or debris (33 USCA 426 m (c)).

The Corps interprets this section to mean that if owners of the debris can
be identified, the owners are liable for the cost of removal. The Boston
Harbor debris removal project is currently being delayed in part
because of the Corps interpretation. A resolution of this conflict is not
expected until 1981 and will establish a precedent for other cleanup
projects. If debris ownership must be determined, a different state
strategy for dealing with the debris question must be formulated. In the
meantime, Massachusetts is seeking support to obtain changes in the law.

In Rhode Island authority for debris removal rests with the Coastal
Resources Management Council which prohibits the abandonment of structures
in navigable waters:

520.1-2 c. Abandonment of vessels, piers, wharVes, or
other such structures in the navigable waters of the state of
Rhode Island is specifically prohibited. Upon verification
of legal tital to such abandoned structures the Council shall
order their removal at owner expense within a time period
specified in said order.

Failure to comply with the terms of such an order shall
be a violation of a duly adopted Council regulation and subject
to all fines and penalties established by law. Each day of
noncompliance, defined as beginning the day after expiration
of the specified notice period, shall be deemed a separate and
distinct violation in accordance with 46-23-1, GLRI.

Progress in debris removal can occur only after the state in close
cooperation with affected municipalities, develops a plan which answers the
leg.al, technical, and financial questions that must be resolved before
Corps of Engineers participation is possible.

Table 4-9. The Providence River and Harbor and the Seekonk River, R.I.
Debris Study Inventory Summary of Removal Costs of Debris Sources in the Study Area

Quantity of Materials Total Total Total
Number Floatable Non-Floatable Removal Cost Disposal Cost Repair Cost Total Cost
Item Of Sites (C.F.) (tons)

A. Waterfront Structures

1. Dilapidated-not in use 131 307,396 1,052,690 153,714 0 1,206,404
2. Dilapidated-in use 4 19,432 71,223 9,716 23,903 80,939
3. Portions dilapidated
to be repaired 9 16,607 74,835 8,305 175,720 83,140
4. Portions dilapidated
not to be repaired 17 45,818 181,634. 22,910 0 204,544

B. Derelict (wrecked) vessels 53 237,420 843,128 118,711 961,839

C. Loose onshore debris
(flotables) 90 73,650 216,531 36,825 253,356

D. Drift collection 800 19,704 401 20,105

E. Shorefront dumps 24

TOTALS 328 701,123 2,459,745 350,582 199,623 2,810,327

Source: Department of the Army, New England Division Corps of Engineers. 1978.
Providence River and Harbor and Seekonk River Debris Study.

City of Warwick, Department of City Planning, 1975. City of Warwick's Ele-
ment of the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Draft.

Coastal Resources Center. 1976. The Bay Islands Park:@ A Marine Recreation
Plan for the State of Rhode Island. University of Rhode Island,
Kingston, R.I.

Collins, C. and S. Sedgwick. 1979. Recreational Boating in Rhode Island's
Coastal Waters: A Look Forward. Marine Technical Report 75. Coastal
Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, R.I.

East Providence Residents Association, Riverside Action Committee, Inc. and
Save the Carousel, Inc. 1979. Proposal for the New Crescent Park,
Riverside, R.I.

Raytheon Company. 1978. Rhode Island Areawide Water Quality Management
Plan. Preliminary Evaluation. Marinas Task. Prepared for the Rhode
Island Statewide Planning Program. Providence, R.I,

Regional Land Program. 1980. Coastal Aesthetic Study of Narragansett
Bay. Unpublished Draft.

Rhode Island Historical Preservation Commission. 1976. East Providence,
Rhode Island. Statewide Preservation Report P-EP-1.

Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program and Department of Natural Resources.
1976 as updated. -Plan for Recreation, Conservation and Open Space.
Report Number 28. Providence, R.I.

Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program. 1980. Travel Demand Analysis:
East Bay Corridor Transit Study. Technical Paper Number 88. Providence,
R.I.

United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1979. 1977
Census of Government, Volume 4, Governmental Finances. Number 5
Compendium of Government Finances. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C.

United States Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and
Recreation Service. 1978. National Urban Recreation Study. Execu-
tive Report. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

United States Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recrea-
tion Service. National Heritage Policy Act. Northeast Memo. Spring,
1980.

United States Department of the Interior, Heritage Conservation and Recrea@
tion Service. 1980. Urban Waterfront Revitalization: The Role of
Recreation and Heritage. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C. Vols. I and II.

APPENDIX A: The Urbanized Estuary

INTRODUCTION

The upper portion of Narragansett Bay, extending-from the northernmost
point on Prudence Island to the falls of the Blackstone River in
Pawtucket, is a heavily urbanized estuarine ecosystem (Figure A-1). Upper
Narragansett Bay is surrounded by the Providence metropolitan area,
which began and flourished as a port city following the Revolutionary
War, experienced tremendous growth during the Industrial Revolution of
the 19th century and was transformed during the massive suburbanization
of the 20th century. This growth in activity and population modified
the landscape and shoreline of the Upper Bay, altered the flow and quality
of water, and changed the quality of the Upper Bay as a place to live and
as an estuarine ecosystem.

At the turn of the century, Providence reached its peak of influence,
possessing 40 percent of the state's.population. Providence attained its
highest population level in.1940, followed by a steady decline,, as sur-
rounding municipalities experienced rapid growth. Post-war propserity
and deteriorating city conditions led to the present patchwork of resi-
dential developments of different housing values, unit ages, and social
characteristics.

Recent population projections and preliminary census data indicate that the
Providence metropolitan area has stopped growing, and that Upper Bay coastal
communities will stabilize or lose populations in the next decade
(Figure A-2). While population growth is not an essential ingredient for
viable communities, the continuous maintenance and improvement of neighbor-
hoods, businesses, and public facilities is critical for protecting the
at,tractiveness and habitability of an urban area. Consequently, an
interested population base willing to supply capital from both private
and public investments is essential to ensure improvements in the Upper
Bay coastal communities. Unfortunately, much of this vital capital is
currently channeled to support suburban growth.

.Environmental laws and management programs created in the 1960s and 1970s
help supplement the role capital investment plays in protecting special
areas and species necessary to sustain natural resources. The natural
values and resources-of many urban areas have unfortunately often been
ignored. Yet environmental protection and enhancement is especially
important in urban environments which house large population centers.
Programs which provide @financial investments in physical improvements
including provisions for greater shoreline access and protection of
natural features are needed to enhance the quality of life for Upper Bay
residents.

96 -

Figure A-1. Upper Narragansett Bay.

0 1 2mi.

11 2 3km

/* 4P

U p p e r
No rrog a nsett

Figure A-2. Population of Upper Bay
Communities; Actual-, Estimated, and Projected
600 ACTUAL
ESTI MATED
PROJECTED

0 500- 000
0 #40
0 *00
000

0*0

*0 0 0 0
z 400- 000
0
0 009 0

06*

300

0 0

_J 00 0

a. 200

0
0 0
a. 0 0 0
0 0 0
100

0 . . . d
1960 170 175 180 185 190
Est. Proj. Proj. Proj.

Source: Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program.
April 1979.

This Appendix contains the descriptive material prepared in order to
gain a better understanding of the social and environmental characteristics
of the Upper Bay as an urban estuary. It is presented here for reference
and as a demonstration of the richness and variety of the urban coast
as a setting for human and biological life. The discussion is in two
parts, first an overview of social characteristics, and secondly, a discus-
sion of the marine and coastal environment which concludes with a summary
of water quality issues.

URBANIZATION OF UPPER BAY C OW UNITIES

Settlement and Economic Growth

Dramatic economic and population growth in the eight communities surrounding
the Upper Bay has produced a shorefront with a distinct mixture of old and
new neighborhoods and obsolete as well as modern industry which severely
altered the natural landscape. Providence began.as a small settlement
which served as a port for coastal trade, passenger.travel, and fisheries.
This function expanded during the 18th Century, although Newport was the
primary port of international trade until the Revolutionary War. In 1800
Providence surpassed New York, serving.as the home port of 110 sailing
vessels. Providence was heavily engaged in foreign trade which became more
risky and declined after 1820. The city's share of the state population
increased steadily from 1800 to .1910, as waves of European immigrants
participated in the economic growth stimulated by major advances in textile
production and heavy local investments in manufacturing. By 1900, Providence
had 40 percent of the state population compared to 11 percent of a century
earlier, an increase of 23 times. Port activity changed from speculative
ventures in foreign trade to the import of fuel and materials.

However, a number of factors contributed to a decline in population and
economic structure of Providence after 1900. Interstate highways began
to greatly increase'the ease of transportation which, in turn, affected
the economic structure of the city. Residential and industrial develop-
ment spread from Providence to outlying areas. Textile manufacturers
began relocating their operations to southern states. Massive expenditures
were made on roads, sewage treatment, schools and services by suburban
taxpayers, while cities faced mounting financial burdens and economic decline.
The industrial port facilities along the Providence and Seekonk Rivers
also suffered as interstate highways, power plants and tank farms began
to take the place of railroad lines, wharves and coal piers.

Suburbanization and Coastal Development

By 1970, Providence had 29 percent fewer resid ents than in 1940. The
greatest decade of change occurred during the 1950 when the city lost 41,100
in population. This was caused in part by the net migration of 8,655
families of which more than 70 percent moved to other Upper Bay communities
(Table A@I).

Table A-1. Destination of Families Migrating From Providence
1950-1959

Percent of total net migration
Destination from Providence

Barrington 2.4
Bristol .2
Cranston 28.6
East Providence 9.0
Pawtucket 3.7
Warwick 28.4
Warren

72.3

Source: Goldstein, Meyer, 1961.

A less dramatic change has affected Pawtucket, which lost five percent of
its population between 1950 and 1970.

The physical development of the Upper Bay is the result of a social pro-
cess which is.historical in nature. The desire of people to improve the
quality of their residential environment includes a search for lower
density, more open space and natural landscape, newer and better quality
homes and compatible neighbors. Increasing affluence, detriorating city
conditions and dislocation of neighborhoods due to urban renewal and high-
way construction provided reasons for seeking new places to live outside
Providence. Projections by the Statewide Planning Program indicate that
both Providence and Pawtucket will continue to lose population until the
end of this century. Other Upper Bay municipalities are expected to
stabilize at current levels, with the exception of Warwick, which is
expected to grow, but'at a slower rate than during the 1950s and 1960s
(Figure A-3).

Residential Character of the Upper Bay Coastal Towns

The Upper Bay shore is dominated by residential land use of various den-
sities. The two exceptions are the eastern shore of the Seekonk River
which is an industrial district known as Phillipsdale, and both sides
of Providence Harbor which are utilized by the port industry. Figure A-4
is a generalized map of the zoning classification of the Upper Bay shore
which serves as a reasonable general land use map, since to a large extent
the zoning ordinances reflect existing urban land cover. However, the
amount of undeveloped land in each remaining community differs. Providence
and Pawtucket possess less than 10 percent vacant land compared to nearly
20 percent in East Providence, and even greater quantities in Warwick and
Bristol.

100

Figure A-3. Population of Upper Bay Communities
Actual, Estimated, and Projected

200

150

0 PROVIDENCE
0
0

z 100 WARWICK
0

CRANSTON

-J

PAWT CKET

a.
50
0 EAST PROVIDENCE

BRISTOL

BARRINGTON

WARREN
0 t- 1 1
1960 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990
P@AWTUCKET

est. Proj. Proj. Proj.

Source: Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program. April 1979.

LANU UZ)L DAOCIJ VIN lVIUl4ItoIr/AL Z-VINII'YU

INDUSTRIAL OR
COMMERCIAL
F/7 1 RESIDENTIAL
VA

OPEN SPACE

102

Residential districts which dominate the Upper Bay, shore and differ con-
siderably fromone another in some important social and housing stock
characteristics. Census information from 1970 can be used to illustrate
significant variations among-,the 39 shorefront census tracts (Figure A-5).

Family income is closely related to the value of housing units and
the tendancy to rent rather than own a home. Median family income for
the entire Providence metropolitan area in 1969 was $9,929, with a range
of $4,800 to $22,000 in Upper Bay communities (Table A-2) (Figure A-6).
The number of families below the federal poverty level varied between
1.8 and 27.6 percent. However, in one half of all the shorefront census
tracts at least ten percent of all families were considered low income,
deflned as an income less than 125 percent of the poverty level (Table A-3).

Table A-2. Median Income of Table A-3. Percentage of Low
Families in Shorefront Census Income Families in Shorefront
Tracts (shown in Figure A-5) Census Tracts (shown in Figure A-5)

Median Income number of % low income number of
$ 1969 census tracts families census tracts

15,000 + 2 25+ 3
13 &.14 3 20-24 0
11 & 12 10 15-19 5
9 & 10 13 10-14 10
7 & 8 9 5- 9 15
4, 5 & 6 2 0- 4 6

39 39

Source: Bureau of the Census. 197b Census of Population and Housing.

Considerable variation also exists in the proportion of owner occupied
houses in the Upper Bay. Apartments and rented houses comprise 38 percent
of all units, but a range of 6 to 90 percent exists among census tracts
(Table 2-4). Asimilar broad range can be seen in the value of owner
occupied houses in the Upper Bay. The mean value of a house in the
Providence metropolitan area was $19,214. The range of the Upper Bay was,
$8,200 to $44,700 in 1970, with one third of all tract possessing average
house values of $15 to $20,000 (Table A-5) (Figure A-a7).

Table A-4. Percentage of Rental Table A-5. Average Home Value in
Units in Shorefront Census Shorefront Census Tracts (shown
Tracts (shown in Figure A-5) in Figure A-5)

% rental average' home
units 1969 #.tracts value 1970 Ltracts

80-99 1 35,000 + 3
60-79 .6 30-34,900 3
40-59 8 25-29,900 3
20-39 12 20-24,900 8
0-19 12 15-19,900 12
10-14,900 7
5@ 9,000, 3
39
Source: 1970 Census of Population and Housing.

103
7

PAWTUCKET
166
171
65
Figure 2-5. Upper Narragansett
Bay Census Tracts
34 'o 101.

PROVIDENCE 35
36
8 102 EAST

7
6 104 PROVIDENCE

1
105.02

135

107.01
CRANSTON
134
m 10
107.0

210
303
301
213 302 306.01
A INGTON WARREN

304 305
214.01 306.02
2.15.
WARWICK

215.02 BRIS OL

309.02 309.0

216
307

308

104

0 0 00
0 00
00"0
Figure 2-6'
0000 MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME

1969

@$15,000 +
AM-513-14,000
=0$11-12,000
0
'00 9-10,000
00
0 cc 000
0@0000(? 7- 8,000
00 00008 r---j less than
00 WOO
00- e
0 @0
00 00 00
C%. 0 Go $7,000
0 0. 00 a 000 0
0 , W00*0!* 00 0
0000 00 0000@po
00 pepoo, 0000
0@poooo 0.0 00
00.!0 8 OW00 Source: Bureau of the Census, 1971
00000 0 00
00

0 0
000 0 4Z

*0
cc 5 0
'0 % 60 00
000"006.,
@0- .00 bod'o-
-, 00 0 0 00
coo 000000 000J! 00 0
00 0 0 000 .0 -
0 000
00 00 0 0
0 0 a 0 a 0
,?S 0800 09 0 01111
0
-0 @0 0-. 90050
0 0 Wo 0.
*0 oo"*00%6*- 'pZ:Z; 00
'0
0 06000000 0coo
@%S.* Uo@ 0000 0000 a
0000000.1 :0
cearbolI
00-80.,O.d.-0
@Cj *0 0 '1
00 0 a *10 beo
'000'..9 ."o
WWR 0 0 00! 0 00. 00.P0
00 00 a 00
17 % 0000 *1 * )Woo
. .... ... C) 000 pippoo@ 00 0
0 oeoboo!o 00 0-000
0%
'.P000 ON-8.
0 0 0 ocroo,6"
coo a 00 00 00!00
01 000MOOwo
0so 0
0000 00 0
0
00000
0ocee
Od? 100
o 0
'0 C) 00 0000000
011.0..0 000 00000!0 0
0(b 0 0 00 0000
0 00 0 00,00,0
00.0 00 0 000 00 %0.
0 0
!.0 0600%00
a@ oeo 00,
0 0000000 0000 0
04,
0 0
0(?0%0p'
0 0
0 - 0.; @* 0 *:.0 0
0000booo 0
00000
0600.600 00040. 0 0
VOW ...... .
0 0.0
0 ;00.00
05.00
%
"Z 2
.. ...... .. .
00,0
P

00
00 00000 00
0
'0
0
0--- 000
00
R 000 00
0000 a00
.... .. 000
'0
0
00
000
0.0.00
0000.
00000%0
00 .000'
0600
0
000
C'0

105

Figure 2-7
AVERAGE VALUE OF OWNER
OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS,1970

XM$35,000+
MM$30-34,000
a=$25-29,000
EEM$20-24 000
mm$15-19,000
9--@M$10-14,000
C@1-3$ 5- 9,000

Source: Bureau of1the Census, 1971

%%**0@

6-:

%W Z

N- W.

106

The physical development of the Upper Bay has been dramatic in recent
decades. Although two thirds of all housing in the area was constructed
before 1940, the proportion of these units varies1rom 11 to 95 percent
among shorefront census tracts. Relatively little new housing was con-
structed during the 1930s. Rapid suburbanization followed World War II,
lasting well into the 1970s. Pawtucket and Providence began to lose
population, and along with Cranston saw little new housing construction.
More than half of the housing units along the western shore in Warwick
were built after 1940. On the eastern shore of the Bay, about 45 percent
of all housing was build after 1940, with 12 out of 20 census tracts
containing predominately post-1940 dwellings.

The segregation of families by income is clearly manifested in the geographic
distribution of housing by age, value, and occupancy characteristics. With
the notable exception of the Providence East Side, census tracts with
very high amounts of pre-1940 housing are occupied by families with lower
incomes, who rent rather than own their dwelling unit. Owner-occupied
housing in these areas tends to be much lower in value as well. Population
losses between 1960 and 1970 occurred in most of the poorest census
tracts. House values and the tendency to own rather than rent steadily
increase with family income. Tracts with concentrations of families of a
certain income are quite likely to have housing at a particular value
(Figure A-8).-

Even though the census tract is a somewhat arbitrary geographic unit, the
sharp differences in the family income and home values of'adjacent tracts
serves as a strong indication of the powerful role of family preferences
and choices in selecting a place to live.when the financial means are
available. Segregation by family income may be prevalent, but it is
important to note that high, moderate and low income neighborhoods are
scattered throughout the Upper Bay, rather than clustered together. Such
diversity may well be a strength as the Providence urban area enters a
new and difficult stage in its development.

[email protected]@ons of the No-growth Metropolitan Ayea.

The Upper Bay is part of a much larger urban system labeled as the
Providence-Warwick Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (_SMSA) by the
Bureau of the Census. It consists of 25 towns in Rhode Island and 8 in
Massachusetts, and had a population of 910,781 in i970. The cities and
towns surrounding the Upper Bay, Warwick, Cranston, Providence, Pawtucket,
East Providence, Barrington, Warren, and Bristol had a population of
507,016 in 1970, or 55.6 percent of the SMSA and 53.3 percent of the
state. Nationwide, there were 272 SMSAs in 1975, an 11 percent increase
over 1970. These urban areas are where 72 percent of the nation's
population resides and works.

Between 1960 and 1970, 8 large (over 200,000) SMSAs in the U.S. suffered
a net population loss, or grew less than one percent during the decade,
No-growth metropolitan areas differ from rapidly developing places in some

107

Figure A-8. Relationship of family income
and housing values
39 coastal census tracts

25000

0
20000

Lj
2 15000-
0
0
z

0040*0 0 0
10000-

0 5000- 0
w

01
0 10 20 30 40
VALUE Of HOUSING UNITS, 1970
thousands of 'dollars

Source: Data taken from Bureau of the Census, 1971

108

important aspects, including employment opportunities, income distribution,
public services, and real estate values. Population growth is a sensitive
indicator of the economic well-being of a metropolis. Places with
expanding job opportunities not only retain their population but attract
young, skilled, economically and physically mobile people and families,
as well as laborers with few skills and little education who can fill
lower paying jobs. Many cities in the South and West are experiencing
such growth, and a great deal is known about how such areas develop. Less
national concern has been given to those SMSAs which are experiencing
stagnation or decline in both the central. city and outlying communities,
and which have economies that fail to attract new residents and tend to
foster the out migration of mobile segments of the existing population.
In exploring the effects of no growth on the Upper Bay, Rhode Island data
is used because detailed historical data on the Providence SMSA is
limited.

Rhode Island has slowly lost ground,to the rest of the nation in per
capita income since World War II (Figure A-9). Although the state has
remained close to the middle of national rankings, the trend in the
1970s has been toward continued decline. Average weekly wages in manu-
facturing during 1977 were 78 percent of the national average, a decline
,,from 83 percent in 1970. Changing economic conditions are reflected in
the loss of population in the 20-34 age group during the 1960s and projected
losses in the 25-49 group during the 1970s. Although total civilian
employment has increased steadily since 1975, the labor force declined
in 1978 (Table A-6).

Table A-6. Employment, Labor Supply, and Unemployment
Rate in Rhode Island

Total Employment Labor Force Unemployment Rate
(percent)

1970 344,100 394,700 5.6
1975 349,200 429,800 11.1
1976 366,700 434,000 8.1
1977 381,700 441,000 8.6
1978 397,800 433,000 6.7

Source: Rhode Island Department of Economic Development, 1979.

This change has occurred despite the entrance of the largest number of
young people into the 15@24 age group in the state's history.,

The failure of a metropolitan area to grow can have some significant
effects upon both the population and the landscape. The decline in popula@
tion serves as an indicator of economic decline. Those who are capable
of leaving an area represent only a small segment of the entire population.
Rust observes (1975,):

109

Figure A-9. Decline in Rhode Island per capita
w income compared to national average

z
w 150
U

w
a-
140

130
W Ir
UJ
0

120-

110-
z

U-
w 100 ---------------- -- ----
a.

z
90-

w
a I I I I I I I
0
x 1930 '40 50 '60 '70 'so

Source: R.I. Department of Economic Development, 1979.

110

Economic distress could conceivably be a "push" when it
affects people who are childless, own no real estate, are about
to enter the labor force for the first time, or are forming a
new family, all of which are more frequent among the young.
At the same time, distress could be a barrier to mobility for
other persons whom it deprives of.resources needed for the
move, oron whom it imposes a greater dependence on friends
and relatives, property and community institutions. A home-
owner or small businessman in a distressed community, for
example, would be hard put to recover enough equity in the.sale
of his property to afford to buy elsewhere.

The result in many no growth metropolitan areas is a lack of outmigration
which in some cases could help relieve pressure on the labor market. The
economy of such areas is further weakened by an inability to develop or
attract new industries and utilize available capital locally. Average
family income declines relative to the nation as families share in a
shrinking or stagnant economic base. Municipal governments experience
increasing difficulty in supplying public services when property values
decline and the tax base is eroded.

The Providence metropolitan area has already experienced some of the changes
characteristic of no-growth SMSAs. In addition to slow economic expansion,
suburban residential development has been occurring at the expense of
developed neighborhoods, since total population has declined while that
of suburban communities continues to increase. The trend should not be
interpreted as a final verdict on the fate of Upper Bay communities, but
as a signal of the seriousness which urban problems and needs should be
taken.

THE URBAN ESTUARY

Introduction

Upper Narragansett Bay is a typical'temperate estuary, a coastal embayment
in which sea water mixes with an is measurably diluted by freshwater from
land drainage. Of the various types of estuaries, the Upper Bay is best
described as a stratified system in which freshwater derived from rivers,
rain and runoff flows out over the top of heavier salt water that comes
up the Bay from the Sound along the bottom (Figure A-10). Superimposed
on,this basic pattern of two-layered flow, are currents driven principally
by wind and tides. Tidal flushing is an important force in the Bay. It has
been estimated that the tides flush almost 250 times the volume of water
in and out of the Bay as does the average total river input. Tidal
flushing, combined with the intrusion of well-oxygenated, relatively clean
bay water well upstream into the Providence River hel ps deter potentially
more serious water quality problems than presently exist. This inflow of
Bay water along the bottom is probably a major reason why anoxic conditions
are not more frequentand wide-spread in the Providence and Seekonk
Rivers.

SEA R_IVER

swoop,
swoop,

.@z
(QO:

Figure A-10. Two-layered estuarine circulation in which a
bottom layer of high salinity water flows in from the
sea to compensate for a seaward flow of low salinity sur-
face water derived from rivers, rain and runoff. In the
Upper Bay the high salinity water extends along the bottom
well up into the Providence and Seekonk Rivers.

112

A striking characteristic of the Upper Bay as an estuary is its great
variability. This variability makes it difficult for us to assess impacts
of any given change in the Bay on the rest of the system. There'is varia-
tion over both space and time for many parameters, including sunlight,
temperature, river discharge and salinity. In the Upper Bay, average
salinity varies seasonally from about 18 to 27 parts per thousand and the
annual water temperature range is normally from 0-240C. Although rainfall
is fairly constant year round, there is a distinct seasonal pattern to
river discharge (Figure A-11), in which there is low flow in the summer
and high flow the rest of the year. In the summer, vegetation in the
watershed transpires to the atmosphere water that would have otherwise
been discharged to the Bay. There are seasonal variations in the aquatic
life in the Upper Bay which accompany the changes in physical parameters.
There is a seasonal succession of spawning by organisms that inhabit the
area as well as a seasonal pattern of migration in and out of the Bay.
Great schools of menhaden come into the Bay from offshore waters in
early spring and leave in the fall. They are pursued by large numbers
of bluefish and striped bass.

There are alsomide-spatial variations in the Upper Bay. For instance
salinity, temperature, light penetration, turbulence vary with depth in
the water column. The water of the Upper Bay is much more turbid than
the lower Bay (about 10.times more turbid), which is a reflection of
higher phytoplankton abundances in the Upper Bay (nourished by the increased
nutrient loadings from urban areas) and high particulate loadings from
runoff and sewage disposal. Marked spatial gradients in the bottoin habitat
extend down-Bay. Silt clay sediments are the characteristic bottom type
in the Upper Bay while sands are abundant in the lower Bay. Fine sedi-
ments are typical of the upper reaches of estu 'aries where particles sus@
pended in the freshwater flowing into the Bay precipitate out in the zone
where fresh and salt water mix. There is a high proportion of organic
matter in the Upper Bay sediments due to organic particles flushed from
the sewage treatment plants, urban runoff, and phytoplankton cells sinking
to the bottom. Consequently there is a gradientdown-Bay in which
nutrients and carbon content are much higher in the Providence River and
Upper Bay sediments than down-Bay. The communities of organisms that
inhabit the bottom of the Upper Bay are patchy in their distribution in
response to gradations of dissolved oxygen, organic content and s ediment
size.

Susceptibility to Erosion and FL@Rodiag

The various kinds of development along the shorefront in 'the Upper Bay
are all subject to potential damage from storm flooding and erosion.
Some areas are particularly vulnerable due to specific factors such as
their low elevation, soft easily erodable land type, or the orientation
of a particular site that exposed it to wind and waves sweeping up the@Bay.

113

RAIN

0
0 5
x
ff) RIVERS
E
4-

W
W 2-
Cr
U-

0 L I
J F M A M J J A S 0 N D

Figure A-11. The seasonality of freshwater input to Narragansett
Bay. Even though the rainfall is fairly constant over the year,
there is a distinct seasonal pattern to river discharge of low
flow in summer and high flow the rest of the year.

114

A simple geological classification of the shoreline and an assessment
of suscepibility to storm wave erosion and flooding has been done by
Dr. Jon Boothroyd and Abdullah Al-Saud of the Geology Department at URI.
The dominant types of shoreline are organized in order of increasing
resistance to erosion. They are arranged as follows:

1. Beach and barrier spit
2. Glacial outwash gravel and sand
3. Glacial till
4. Soft bedrock (less resistant)
5. Hard bedrock (highly resistant)

Man-made bulkheads or other engineered structures also form a significant
portion of the Upper Bay coastline. Depending,on the design of the
structure, they can be more of less resistant to erosion. They range from
a resistance equivalent of glacial outwash (2) up to that of hard bedrock
(5) depending on the type of structure (Table A-7).

Beaches and barrier spits are the most susceptible to flooding and erosion
because they consist of the finest and smallest sediment sizes and are found
at low elevations. Wave action of severe storms pounding against the beach
first remove the sand from the forebeach and then attack the material
behind the beach. During periods of fair weather the beachfront or berm
is rebuilt from sand just offshore or from fine grained material eroded
just up-current along the shoreline. Thus the beaches along the shoreline
as well as the larger barrier spit beaches like Barrington Beach all under@
go continual cycles of erosion and deposition in response to storm waves.
Much of the shoreline in the Upper Bay is soft highly erodable beach sedi-
ment. In addition to the small stretches of beach interspersed along the
shorefront there are large barrier spits.such as Barrington Beach and
cuspate beaches sucb.as Sabin Point. Since these beach areas are naturally
shifting systems, structures should not be built on them.

Most severe storm winds blow from the,east, either as winter northeasterlies
or summer hurricanes blowing from the southeast. Shorefronts with an
eastern exposure to open stretches of Bay over which storm waves
gain magnitude before striking the shore are particularly susceptable to
erosion. When an eastern exposure is combined with a soft substrate the
most vulnerable'situation occurs. Examples of the most erodable sections
of Upper Bay include such areas as the south shore of Conimicut Point,
Warwick; Barrington Beach, Barrington. Next in erosion susceptibility
are areas of glacial outwash such as Occupessatuxet Neck and Oakland Beach
in Warwick and Coggeshall in Warren. Erosion of glacial till and soft
bedrock proceed more slowly. Recession of this type of shoreline that
is present in the towns around the Upper Bay. It is evident that the
natural shoreline in Warwick and Barrington is particularly susceptable
to erosion, about 75 percent of it being in the three most erosion prone
categories. Warren and East Providence follow closely with 63 percent
and 56 percent respectively of their shoreline in the first two highly
vulnerable categories. About 61 percent of Bristol's shoreline is suscep-
table to erosion. These last three towns have shoreline that does not have

Table A-7. Upper Narragansett Bay Shoreline Character Type

Beach and Glacial Glacial Discontinuous Soft Engineered
Barrier Spit Outwash Till Bedrock Bedrock Structure Total

Warwick, 3.8 mi. 3.74 mi. 1.89 mi. 0.05 mi. 0.47 mi. 2.69 mi. 12.64 mi.

% 27 31 15 1 4 22

Cranston 0 0.57 mi. 0 0 0 1.89 mi. 2.458 mi.

% 0 23 0 0 0 17

Providence 0 0.10 mi. 0 0 0 4.4 mi. 4.495 mi.

% 0 0 0 0 98

East Providence 1.27 mi. 2.36 mi. 0 0 0.14 mi. 2.72 mi. 6.49 mi.

% 20 36 0 0 2 42

Barrington 4.68 mi. 0.38 mi. 0.62 mi. 0.02 mi. 0 2.03 mi. 7.73 mi.

% 60 5 8 1 0 26

Warren 0.81 mi. 0.33 mi. 0 0 0 0.66 mi. 1.80 mi.

% 45 18 0 0 0 37

Bristol 0.31 mi. 0.54 mi. 1.94 mi., 0 0 1.75 mi. 4.54 mi.

% 7 12 43 0 0 39

TOTAL 10.44 mi. 8.02 mi. 4.45 mi. 0.07 mi. 0.62 mi. 16.14 mi. 39.74 mi.

% 26 20 11 1 2 40

1 Boothroyd and Al-Saud, 1979.

116

Wl
a southern or eastern exposure and therefore are not plagued **th the same
degree of erosion problem as are the towns on the west side of the Bay.

Severe storms cause enormous amounts@of erosion. Whole chunks of cliffs
or b1tiffs may be lost in one storm. 'Fable A-8 is a compilation of erosion
tbat occurred due to a single storm in variotis areas of the country.

Table A-8. Erosion by Waves in a Single Storm

Location Year Ay@_r.@ e Cutback

Long Island 1938 40 ft.
Cape Cod 1944 25 ft.
New Jersey 1953 65 ft.
Virginia Beach 1948 100 ft.
Florida 1950 35 ft.
Louisiana coast 1957 125 ft.

Providence and Cranston have had most of their shorefront altered with
engineering structures. Attempts to solidify and protect the shoreline
have been extensive in the other towns around the Upper Bay as well.
In some cases, particularly in shorefront of private residences, riprap
has been used as erosion protection. Unless the rocks are very large
and substantial, this effort is often ineffectual. The small rocks used
in most of the less expansive attempts at shoreline stabilization can be
removed by the force of most storm waves. Much of the rubble on East
Oakland Beach in Warwick is from storm destroyed structures. Even extensive
bulkheading can be eroded.

Not only is much of the Upper Bay subject to wave erosion, it is also
susceptible to storm surge flooding. Bay water is piled up against
the shore by wind and waves driven by severe storms at sea. It floods
low lying coastal areas and occurs in addition to the type of flooding we
more commonly associate with heavy rains and swollen rivers tributary
to the Bay.

Figure A-12 depicts the potential severe storm surge line all along the.
coast of the Upper Bay. Everything below the twenty foot elevation
above mean sea level is potentially vulnerable to storm surge flood
damage. For instance, in the hurricane of 1938, the storm surge still
water elevation was about 4 meters (12 feet) above mean highwater. Since
land elevations on standard topographic maps (from which-our figure was
drawn) are given in feet above mean sea level, another 2.5 feet must be
added for average high tide. With a wave height of 3 meters (9 feet) the
total elevation of the wave damage of 1938 hurricane probably reached
was 24 feet above sea level. Consequently everything built below the 20
foot contour is subject to storm damage in a storm the magnitude of the
1938 hurricane. Much development has occurred along the shorefront
in the 40 years 'Since that catastrophic storm. Some redeveloped areas are
particularly vulnerable. Conimicut Point, for example, was devastated by

117

Figure A-12. Shoreline Types

0
KEY

0 1 2mi.
i I II --y ... Engineered
0 1 2 3km Structure

Glacial
Outwash

Glacial Till

Beach and
.... Barrier Spit

0 Soft Bedrock

4f4S Discontinuous
S Bedrock

a.T.4.,T Flood Hazard
'0
Zone
T
U p p e r
No ragansett
B a y 5

16
N

C)
r1i

Ak4
-0 r-
> >

;r@, co

00 a
0 00
00a 0 0 0
0 ba"
0
00.00e 0
%0000 0
1!0.0
%% 0 0
-.0.;W
0 0%0
0 0 0
0
0 000000
-01
0 00 *1 0 0a
o
00 d,
Of -OdF'o 00
00
.0 00
0 0 -,Mc 0-
01
.200P
o-,fO6O-.a.--Y.Pq,*po '001 0
d AV, 02,0
DCPO odO 0 11
-Mpl- 0 o5voo@oof@00900
'o
woo 'a 0' 0 -.-0 0
00 00 0
0 0
a
0 cpoOOocoJ.OpcR-.5
o%o%o%o%oill-
0
I@W-o 0 Od-- 5U.d'o "P
a %00:0-
.0.6
c 00
,a lol@
0 0
_-0-ow-bO'bO 0 10
0-0
eo(po 0 0
0 0 0
0-0

0 0

00
0
0 0
0 0

0
00
00
0
0* 0

0 00

-3

119

2
0 go
loo

0 00

a 0

.0
a 0 2000 f t.

0
0

LJ
:D

00
ui 00
0

0 0
000
0

OWAY

00 00

00
% GASPEE.
0 000
00 00 PT
0 0%00
0 %
a 0 0
00000 ago 0
0 0 0,@M%
0.
000 Q*0To
00 10

00
a 0

00 0
0
00

0
0 a
ooeoo*,oo 0
000 0
00 0. 0,600 a
Go oo
0000 0 a
00 00 0.
00
0,0
0
0 loo
0 0 00 0 0
'00 0
0 0 0

0 0
0 ....
0 0
00
0 0 00
a a,
00

WARWICK
0 a
00 PON D
a
a
0
0 a0 0 0 0
0 00000
0 0
. 0
a, 0 a i6ocroooM @0,90
o' 6 "a0
a RUM, -
0.0000
--- b.001; iolo.@ 0 a
1030 0 0 0 ;*
.u.-!g020000.4@*000:0 0 coca I
a a. a . a uo@01060000
0 .-a 0 0 a-
0.;, '*a
0. 0 a-
cr *aa a a 00
- 0
0 .0 a- 0.9 ?a

120

agoat -
,,,*-a 0
0,100*08
s%T0
6080aa 00
20 020;0aI
0 2000 f t. j P. 1., 0
00 6:0 8
w
4. 00
a- -0 a
108 0 804@
age a as- 362202 ws
00 o;*8*4w8*!w8%,
0 8 0 08VOICUS
0 409 a a ogo c
0 -A 8008001
0 8a0
ws gal
688as
a a 0
SABIN PT. 0a
0 vo8
0 2
so
0-0 r
SOW,
0 0a
0 0 CRESCENT VIEW _00 000
00. 003
0
0
a. ?-a
as- ago0o
"a 0 a*
011'... 0 9 00
X. 0 00
oe. a
;q 0 -a 01 0-00 0
-0 0, . 0@:
00 orloooo* 0 0 2 0,0200 0 a
0.
goo
a 0 0
Ja
o0zo !a 20.0-08V
% 08-00
0 0 at
0. 'a
OX 0 0
0og'.0 0
co 390300.5 a
a 0 08%080
280
Do a 0-0 a
a 0

a 0
a'.. 0'.a 0 0
00 0*'
0 -0a
o0gos
BU LLUU K3 0 03 0,0106
0
:_ -10 0
a oi-b a',
0 az -
9.0 "a
Co v 0.
0 0 00 a-
006 00- -.00. a 02 s wo
104r 00 .- 000 00 > 300 QK;
00 : "Glorep- 0 0 8 0a
-0 %.C:@ c -e.: D a0
0010,70-0 aago
0160*04io
0 - j1:qQi_ 0,0
00 0 0010, @. __ 'r,
X ocoatioo 0 09 a
0
OOON 0 0 oso 000 0
X. 0!0-!r)a ,a o*Z%
;00 00
goooooo 3 ON'To @ e6 F... 0
0861;@ So
BULLOCK PT. *0 0 00000
0 a
0 F200: 0 dw: @-o 0
000 a00
.00, 0.00
000
0 00;700 0
goo 0 Dooa
00,woo 0-0-0
000 a, 0 0,
a0 0'a 0.
00.4000, a
04 a00 00 cc *;a 060 a0 00
00 0
0000OL006000 00 00 0
000,:000ig 00-00 0"a a %; @*
0 go 00
a
r., a a a-00
:r0o 0 6002000
. ovo.. 00 *a
Do 00 a* 0.00,000" 0,
0 0
'00 0.
ton ..,Owo,
osa*o 0000 0
00 00 0
M- 0004? 000
0 -0 000 vop,iL-6
00 ,10SED. 0 0
0.0
0020
a 00 00 0a a a 0000
00 200a a s0,w:0,w0, -
Mo 080 0: a 0
0 or0
04 0'@, ? 0,
Olt 000
0 Goo0 00
0000 a 00 00 og6o 00
00 a
.00 ca- 0.060,090 00
000000000 0..a 'a
C, 10 0 a
MID 0
0 0 0
ol,%6*0020- 2 56 00000, 0
00.000000 00200 no
06 000 OOQQ 0 0
;a 00 a
.,Maom a.*. .0cvo 000009
0-0a 00 oo a0 0000 46 0a
002.;@ 0 goo
oo a go 00 a 06 ....MG-2080 0
0 0 006
4@00@g .. a 00 0 00 3 0 0,
-0,000'a. a 0-00000
0 00000 0 0*0 00009 1@cq 00
90,00 00 - a - a
-0 0 oo0;00o0;.0*0,;00o* 0
go 0 00
a a a oscov 060 060 0040 6a a,
00 00 000a 6
0
0 00 00 0
6 a aaaa
0. a 0 *00
a0. *a a)0aaa
000 00

-0 0,0 030
02 00
.0 a aLazo
8 0.0 8 600,76-
10.0 cq ccvqo. , . a
a20 00
a go 0 60@Mop6 -0
0 00000 oj 0
NAYATT P 0,
-0 lEa._ 00
T . o 0

121

r4loolov-00,00,00,010 OQOO%b%
NOWN.P.,pooDocpa OOOOCP()GP
-0 - 0'00'0
Q-pO-bO-bO-bOw,"Ow,
a Q!fo00o69ocpO00op:0c-p* a CPO 0
0,00- ;.a! 0 0 0 02- a 0%- 00@boICONIMICUT P T.
0a -0
0 ou a , 0! 11
-%00%106- Oo 00 Oc
1 000000 00 00 .. ......
Oo 0 go 0000 0 0 bc@ 0
00 . . .............. .. :
oa. 0- 0-00 0 60,%@@Qo wo 0 @o 0 @o 0 woo 00
00D0 - 'Oe--Oe--Oe-OeO -0 @o .0 0
0J@ 0 0. , 0 0OAO0 FO
010'00 000000. -"0 0 0 0 a00 a
00
@Q- 00 *--OW9;q P%qo -.0.0
0 a@O -0--0-0 -04@10ceoe 'OoPpo a ?o
00001 00, 0.o
-Oeo eo 0 CPO .0.00,
a 00 b*%O -00-00 0 060.aIfoo0 D 0
O-.O-aO 00- 0-'0 O.Ro.-Oc 0
0 d@ e 000 CPO 0 OP 0 CPO 0 0O-o000 00 0Ocolbolo
-0 -0 -0
0 0, 0 0Oo @0lcdfp-00$,OQrO-
--0 v-Ow-OQ-OO-0
0.0100100%0% . - - 1. 10, -.10.
0-0 0 C-Pu 0OocP0cPOcPO6*Od@OqQO a OF 0 e 0 d@ 60 0 00 0 d-; 0 do 0.0 0
00 bO'0O'0O%O%O%O%O%O10o% 100,00,00 `6 O'.O'b0
00-
)00 00000 OcPO 0000POO00cp *CPO0GPOOOO0 0 2000 ft.
00000000000%o(o - 0-00 0
o-o')?o5oo2o 00-0 0-
,-0 -0 0
.PO!000.00.11,0@ -,a, 0-. 0
00
00-a00"0.00 -00-0-0
Q-O@ 0-litc la@c
0Go
10,110
d
-0 @ I
- o OFO. -.000000 cp -0 00000 -O*oOocpopc!o, 0
DO-00-00-00.100a
00,?0' 0-0 .00% 00 0-00 -00-
00-ow 0
OCPOQPOOG 0(P ?0 00 0- 0:-P 0ocroeocpo),
0 - c
000 -0 00 bo -0 00 0.0
0 '? 0 00 0 0%- 0, 0 00 O.(xj.
lodloop 0-0 , 0. @ 00
060.00e.0 000 000000 % !-60
000000%0 000000 %-0 O@0 %0
9000000po-O-e-00 CPCFCF6
0, 0- 00
000000%0000-0 a
0%010 00
0croo-00 OcPOcFO oap0
-00 0@0, woo 0
0100 Ib 0000 -60-0 0
0, 0cpoeoe 0 00 0. 0
0.00. 00 O%.6DV0!060,V . 0
00-0 0*
00 0`-0
.p -0o - 0@6 0 p po.-O.'00 X - * -0
. 00 0000
O%0%o020000 0% -00 00
000 a 0- 60 0-0 02 00 c,
00 -4
0. 0- 0- !0
opa-00 0,00 0
-0 00
00 j@o 00 00 00@0 00 0
000,00 -00a -0
00 0 0 0 -00 co- 00 000 00.0
0000000 00o0,00
00 00-000_0 000000! oo 00
0 -0 0 0%- ;0000 -0 a -o 0 . 0 . 0 -0.--0 1- 0-0
O.o "'? 0
0oepo on 0@00@00. 00 0. 0! -
091, 00
00
000,000
0@O%00 00%
0.0 10-0 0
0 000 00 1
0a O%Q-OO%O %00 00000
elocoopoapoo.-Oooo 000000 00 0
00%0*00%00-0% 00%00 000
000 0000000&40,4@000 1000%00
0 00 0. 00 00 St C-00 Go -a00
-01-0b.- b9loe"0040-0 00
0 000
0 oo .0 .0 ..01 go00
-0 00 0-
O%Q a -000 -00
0 Oo 0 0oi 6o -a%
)o -0 0000
a a Oo-g 0 00, :,000a000%. .0A -0
ON'a 00 000,?0 . 0 0Oj)
@-o .a
oc-'n, oad ;5;0
go coo 00 00
a -0 0 0
0 0 090 Ao 00 40.
0 0,?0 00 0, 00 0 1
a oopoo 0a
0:0 -000 0 0000
00 0-900064logo 0000 Oe;O 0 0
Ogo o0o 00 a 0a0 A
00- pa a a
0 000 00 600 0!0, IN!
, 0*!0 000
000.0 00 a0000!00@O
00. . 0. .. 00 00
v 0000.0-00 004? 0000, 00000
0 0 000000 000
a00000.00 000 00
.00 a* @ 0 0
0 o 000*00 004>
0 !0 0 00?0% 0 000; 00
a ?000 0 0 -Goo go00X 0000 a
000 000,00 *aa 0, 0010
fa 0 00 0 a , 000 00 ROCKY PT.
*;0"Jill-A *, ::E I
oo-N-OHOWA ICK 00 0;
o?000%0? 00wo oe 000-00
*o covoooo-, OVE cooD 0
0 00-00.0 00
0 00000000
a
000 coo; a0
g'0' .006
00000.00 a0
0*a0 0 . 0
O.do 000.: 0
00000a
.0. 0 0 !0
0
00.
0 ,? 0.000.
! '00 00 000;
00aco
0 0>a
0go 0000
090.0<
0900000
0 0a 0 00000
000000arn
0,00 00 000000z
0000000
0
00
0;0 0
00
a poccoo rn
0 o0go
aa
MOO
0 *00
a

log0

Occo
0
0
00
000
a00
0

122

j*Cvjb,9Qxj coo le so 00 00 go Oso 0009
%500 be -
09 00 Oatt- 8-8;wso 00010 .0 CGOO 0 %
0 QT@ o 00 PC 000-94::,
BR UYARD-OWsopm 00 .0
O'o-O -0.0-0
0 ofc% a
a
04 o?jo
00 %
O%Sike 0 N D, 19
00%3,po- 0 o -.0 0 @.-O*s
-06 06,00" 0.0100,06.
0- 0r o a
Soo -0 00 0
6 -0 0-040ro,0-0109- _W100- G, z .0
9 05 0 .0 00 0.
op 00 1 G'Woo' 0*0 0- _0
Ou go
0 go 0.
OTL MO-T.0.00.
b04
go -1 oQD,7j-Tl -,h
0- 0 ov poe.
0. 0 -o -o P. N
: .0. -109U. c- @o
o %,:: a
A o-
ooo@ 00
-T a %O*%WsqpSO cc =QoC
cc..
o 0 e"pofooo !Ooo
.04 2f,
COOOG-0
a Me
Do. %
,;,.coo
-0 - --p - a
o 0
CF. %o Do CL
0 oopo 00, 0
-00%-aIN P4
0 Go, *coo A@lm 0-
0 '0-80 Poso
oes
o- -0
0
0 eepoo 0
'rOo;O?og-
!o P,
-w o
Go,! o a *06 02
Kcc, -,-o--, -ou
cc a**% Do cc 0
806 o0c 0 % a 2000 f t.
o- coo a
o
NID
--Q- cc cc
o4pod
0cooCco 0
popo oUJ 0
0
o%-o oogoo6*
0.... 0cc
% .. , 00 a
coo o
.os'po cog
zo- coo
go .... coo u
o cocoa feR o,
coo coo go cc
;Do 0
o A 000
coo. )o
Q o
.coo C, 3
a o
oo
o
cc - Gpocooo
oo olooloo 0
*JI)p o coope
o oo *coo%- o
o
o'PooDoe. cco a
o oQ
%oopo olbo,@?o -a ooo-o
o coo* Do0
a
a go % Doe 0
0 a
GIPOW60woo a000loo Slo a-c' Go
a -;r -
GCP -06'
o &o
D o o00. O.?o q 0 6N
0 'po
'doocood'o
go o 0 C
DID 0
o %*%*% o
ep cap oeop oDoo6o- M. goo6
ou6c Q%o%o%o,*; Do
ocFoCp,oe,[email protected] 00 -u
o 0%0%o%o%o 01-
rn
&Pooo Do
oo
04,
o
@00%0 0 0cc
OCPQ Roo o
o
0 o
RUMSTICK P 0
Q o

Do
o rn
M
o

-oo
aatI
pog
cooo
0 go S-T IREE-T
o
oLU

08
0
oa cc
ocGo o o o
oocooo o 0
cooo 00
go coo op H.&I
ocoo a, Do IM
Do
ool a
aQ a
_o cco6o
o --*..o

3:
WARWICK PT.

00 0
0@00 10
GOO0
0
0 -
0

a0
G 00
0
0
00
0

0
00 0
GO 0 000 *0
.0 0 000
00

0 00
PATIENCE 0 0
00% 0
0 0
10 Goo 00 woo;@O
0 .34% .0
00 0 a
010 00
ISLAND - 000
0 0
0 000 a
0000 0. 0000
a
0,00 00 a00 .05
OGG 0,
-000 a
0
0 '01
GO
00
%) 00
00.000
Q., 010 :002
0,
4, 0G.! Q 0. 09
0 '000 -00
-Go .
!.%00 0 . .00
00- 000000
GO. 000 0"Goo
00 .000 0000a
00
GO
0
000 60% Moo polo
0 0 1*0 004.'Nooo0
a, 0 0
0 GOO Vm
00
GO
ONO 00
0
0 a
00
00
%.000
o% GO0a
CIO0
0 00
00000 000 0
0 0
000
so 0 sozs 0 .0
00%;Ogo 000
00 00a
00 000
0
0 0
0 0 000020
0
0 0so
0
00.0 0
0

0
0......

00a

0.
PRUDEN 0-

00
.0 po 0

124

80
020 110
0 0
0,
-8 -r- a 0
469
Q,-.; I .
or a
0 00 -oi 0 0 0
M I L _0 0-0, -0
C m
00 00 8,00 -099
a, 11 0
002 0
UT 0 0 000 Wo-o a a
0 0 -08-0-9 co
00
0 :0 0 to
0 06 owa 30000 , 00
0 0-0 0 0 0-0
2 QOZPS
so- - go., 8 0 2000 f t
00
0
0
0 0%0
9

0
00

0
08 00
I - 0000
.-% 0 00
.80-J.2po 0 0

0
0 coo
D 0
0 0 0-060
0 Dod
0 ca 0
0 a -0 00-0.3 .80
0 coooo 000
8 '@.
0 4000000000
0 00 a
000
0 0
0 0
a
00
BRISTOL HARBOR 80*0
U)
< 0

CY 0
U) 0

0 0
0 POPASQU.ASH a
V PT.

0
010 0
co
00

....... .0 00
0
5
0-0
Rocir 0
0
0 D
0
0 BRISTOL P T.
M-goo a . 0
0
a G IS
09 0

125

by severe storms in the past and will see massive inundation in the future.
Lowlying glacial outwash and till areas such as Oakland Beach, Annawomscutt,
Barrington and the west side of Rumstick Neck, Barrington, are also sus-
ceptible to storm surges. Much of the area between Bullock Point and
Nayatt Point, Bullocks Cove, Drown Cove, and behind Nayatt Point will all
be flooded during a major storm or hurricane.

Tributary.�trLeims

A century ago, most of the Upper Bay shore was rural in character.
However, population increases along with a strong desire to live near
the shore has caused much of the open space to be consumed by -residential
development. Much of the development.was focused along freshwater streams
which feed into Upper Bay coves. The princi pal tributary streams and rivers
are shown in Figure A-13. The list includes both the major rivers draining
the Blackstone and Pawtuxet River Basins, as well as the several streams
which drain storm water from coastal neighborhoods into coves along Upper
Narragansett Bay.

The watershed boundaries of the tributary streams are an important coastal
geographic feature. The steep slopes and flowing water provides a natural
constraint to land development adding character and diversity to otherwise
conventional suburban developments. Many tributary streams enter coves
which have high recreational values.

Maintenance of the health of the tributaries and the subsequent recreational
and aesthetic values associated with them depends upon good management
.practices which protect these values and resolve development conflicts.
Management attention must also be focused on the role tributaries play as
pathways for pollutants and sediments.

The Bullock Cove drainage way bordered by East Providence and Barrington
provides several examples of the coastal management issues which require
attention as part of an effort to improve urban environmental quality. The
cove is an important recreational and residential area with about 1600 acres
of land within the basin (Figure A-14). One third of the land cover is
dense residential, while nearly half.is open space. Much of the undeveloped
land is zoned for industrial use and controlled by the Mobil Oil Corporation.
An unnamed stream flows for two miles through Willett Pond, and into
Bullocks Cove. The tidal flow into the upper cove is restricted by the
drainage culvert under Crescent View Avenue, and the state owned railway and
bridge constructed in the mid 19th century. A dredged channel with a control
depth of 6 feet serves the marinas in the lower portion of the cove.
Bullocks Cove is a major center for recreational boating and is bordered by
Haines State Park and Crescent Park, a defunct amusement park, and surrounded
by the established 'communities of Riverside and Bay Spring. A number of
changes are about to take place which raise many coastal management concerns.

126

Figure,A-13

Major Tributaries and Basins of the Upper Narragansett Bay

1) Buckeye Brook/Mill Cove

2) Spring Green Pond/Occupessatuxet Cove

3) Unnamed Brook/Passeonquis Cove

4) Pawtuxet River/Pawtuxet Cove

5) Woonasquatucket, West, & Moshassuck Rivers/Providence River

6) Ten Mile River/Omega Pond

7) Unnamed Brook/Watchemoket Cove

8) Willett Pond/Bullock Cove

9) Annowomscutt Brook/Drown Cove

10) Brickyard Pond, Echo La. ke/Mussachuck Creek

11) Runnins River/Barrington River

12) Unnamed Brook/Smith Cove

13) Barrington and Palmer Rivers/Warren River

14) Unnamed Brook/Mill Gut

127 -

Figure A-13. Major Tributaries and Basins of Upper Narragansett Bay

0 1 2mi.,

0 1 2 3km
5

0 8
3

12 A3

Upper
Narrag a n sett
B a y 14

128

Figure A-14. Bullock cove

.. 91,

watershed

wetland

vegetative
cover

'@-l lij
0
.)A

75
;z 0N7

Rjv4rside
V.

-N

0
0

.'f4 q y
Ir

. . . . . . . . . . .
BULLOCK

COVE

Rarrington

129

The bulk of the 55-acre Crescent Park, owned by East Providence, will be
sold to a real estate firm for housing development. Remaining city held
cove property is slated for marina development, increasing the need for
maintenance dredging of berths and the channel. A shorefront debris prob-
lem also exists. In addition, the Department of transportation plans' to
study the potential of the rail right of way for use as a bikeway.

The Crescent Park sale has caused considerable controversy in the
surrounding neighborhood, in part over the issue of protecting public
access. The opportunity exists in Bullock Cove to link the various pri-
vate and public efforts into a.coherent effort directed at improving the
area as a whole, resolving existing conflicts and avoiding future problems.

Water Itla-1-ity

Pollution problems are not new in Narragansett Bay. There is a long history
of urban and industrial discharges to the head of the Bay since the 1800s
when the Providence area led the country in rapid industrial growth. In
1854 there was a cholera epidemic attributed partly to polluted river
water. By 1877 the Moshassuck River was so foul that the superintendent
of health reported that "it frequently looks black and thick and gives
off an offensive odor of sulphenated hydrogen gas." The sources of pollu-
tion were wastes from slaughter houses, fertilizer factories and woolen
mills along the river. In 1885 the major industries, listed according to
the amount of capital invested were as follows: cotton and woolen manu-
facturers, print works, metals and metallic goods, gas works, machinery,
paper and paDer goods, jewelry, building, silverware, rubber and elastic
goods (McLoughlin, 1978). Complaints of severe pollution
problems in the Providence River and its tributaries were common. In 1883
the Providence Board of Trade passed a resolution stating "....in view of
the present state of the waters of the Providence River and Cove Basin,
we deem it essential for the preservation of the health of our city, that
immediate steps should be taken to provide a better system of sewage."
The Mayor and City Council received a petition stating that "sewage that
is permitted to flow into the waters of the Providence River above Fox
Point has become very offensive to the comfort and dangerous to the health
of our people. The problem will increase in magnitude with increasing
population." There can be no doubt that the whole of both Rivers--the
West and Moshassuck-- above Allen's Print Work and still worse, the
Moshassuck below the Print Works, are causes to some extent of sickness,
disease, and death to the public." The statement continued,,".... the
(Providence) River at the Weybosset Bridge has become extremely filthy
and at,tilmes very offensive to sight and smell...."

A pollution control law 'for manufacturing was suggeste*d to try to lessen
the amount of waste dumped into the river and stated that the major sources
of pollution are private privies and manufacturers wastes. By 1895, a
report to the General Assembly reported. that 6 million gallons of manu-
facturer's refuse and 50,000 lbs. of grease from the woolen mills were daily

130

turned into the Providence River. The condition of the River became so
foul and dangerous to the health of the city that the city adopted an
o1al)orate sewage treatment plan in 1.887 and began construction on the
Flcl.d's I-loint Treatment Plant in 1890.

At present,' pollution of the 1.1rovidefice River and Upper Bay is still a
major concern. Sewage enters the Bay from a number of sources, fro 'm
discharges to rivers and streams outside of the state boundaries, from
nonpoint runoff, from combined storm sewer overflows, from industrial out-
falls and from sewage treatment plants. Not only are the sources of
pollution complicated but the sewage itself is a rich mix. Sewage pollu-
tion not only brings just bacterial contamination and dissolved oxygen
depletion, that are the only parameters for which there are legal standards
nationwide. It also contains toxic metals, carcinogenic pesticides,
organic solvents and petroleum hydrocarbons. There are problems of
eutrophication from excess nutrient and organic loadings as well.

Sewage outfalls are the major source of pollution to the Bay. They treat
a variety of industrial discharges as well as municipal and domestic
sewage. In 1977 the daily flow of sewage effluent to the Bay averaged
126 million gallons per day and the Fields Point plant contributed about
half of the total. Annual municipal discharges have been summarized in
Table A-9 and Figure A-15. The volume of effluent discharged from indus-
tries directly to the Bay or its tributaries averaged 3 million gallons per
day in 1977 which was only 2 percent of the sewage treatment plant.

The volume of effluent discharged from sewage treatment plants and com-
bined sewer overflows to Narragansett Bay has steadily increased since
1960 (Figure A-16). Since there is little freshwater input to Narragansett
Bay, the contribution from sewage is relatively large and varies from about
2 percent of the freshwater budget in December to 12 percent in August.
Over 75 percentof sewage discharged into the Bay enters the Providence
River from combined sewage systems in the cities of Providence, East
Providence, Pawtucket, and central Falls. Over 50 percent of the total
volume comes from one treatment plant at Fields Point. Since Fields
Point-discharge is the largest single waste water to the Bay, there are
strong gradients of contamination extending down Bay from Fields Point.
Levels of metals and petroleum hydrocarbons are 10 times as high in the
river sediments off Fields Point as they are down Bay.

Fields Point is not the only major source of pollution to the Upper Bay.
In a study done by Dr. James Quinn at URI on the input of petroleum
hydrocarbons from Fields Point, sampled over a year, it was estimated that
the plant contributed only about 35 percent of the total petroleum loading
in the River. Two-thirds-of the contamination must come from other
sources. Urban runoff and the combined sewer overflows emptying in@o the
Providence and Seekonk Rivers from Providence, Central Falls, Pawtucket and
the Blackstone Valley District Commission. However, it is extremely
difficult to get a reliable estimate of the'output of these discharges.
They are not routinely monitored and the flows and pollution loads are
highly variable depending on storm events.

Table A-9. Summary of Annual Municipal Sewage Treatment Plant Flows (MGD)
Discharged to Narragansett Bay

Bucklin East West East
-.Y.ear Prov. point Newport Cranston Woon. Prov. Warwick Bristol Warren Warwick Greenwich Narr. Total

1977 65.2 20.5 10.8 10.7 6.0 4.1 2.7 2.2 1.6 1.3 0.6 0.3 126

1976 62.2 20.2 7.1 10.9 6.7 6.1 2.6 2.0 1.3 1.0 0.5 0.3 119

1975 56.6 20.2 7.6 10.0 8.0 4.5 2.7 2.2 1.3 0.9 0.4 0.3 115

1974 58.4 19.5 7.0 8.2 7.5 3.8 2.0 1.9 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.2 110

1973 47.1 20.8 8.0 7.2 8.2 4.4 2.2 2.2 1.4 1.2 0.2 0.2 103

1972 53.1 22.5 9.0 8.2 8.0 5.0 2.2 2.6 2.1 1.5 0.2 0.2 115

1971 51.0 17.2 7.5 7.0 6.4 4.2 1.8 1.8 2.6 1.2 0.2 0.1 101

'1970 52.0 18.3 8.4 6.8 6.4 4.4 1.6 2.2 1.8 0.9 0.2 0.1 103

1969 50.9 17.4 7.5 6.4 4.8 4.1 1.7 1.8 1.7 0.8 0.2 0.0 99

1968 45.7 16.8 6.6 5.5 5.3 3.6 1.7 1.8 1.6 0.7 0.2 0.1 90

1967 47.4 16.2 6.6 5.0 5.3 3.8 1.6 2.6 1.1 0.6 0.2 --- 90

1966 40.7 15.2 5.5 4.5 3.9 3.0 1.5 1.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 --- 77

1965 40.2 15.7 5.7 4.7 3.9 2.8 1.9 1.8 0.7 0.2 0.1 --- 78

1964 44.9 16.2 6.2 4.7 --- 3.0 1.9 2.2 019 --- 0,2 80

1963 40.9 15.8 6.1 4.6 --- 2.8 1.7 2.0 110 --- 0.2 --- 75

1962 46.7 16.5 6.9 5.1 3.5 1.6 2.3 1.2 --- 0.2 --- 84

1961 40.3 15.7 6.9 4.9 --- 3.5 1.9 2.0 L A 0.2 --- 77

1960- 42.5 14.5 6.2 4.1- --- 2.9 1.8 2.0 0.9 0.1 75

1959 41.0 14.7 6. 1 4.3 2.8 1.6 1.8 1.0 --- 0.2 74

From R.I. DEM monthly monitoring files.

132

Figure A-15. Map Key of STP Discharges

Key Number -S-ewage Treatment Plant

1 BVDC

2 Providence

3 Narragansett Village

4 Warwick

5 Cranston

6 West Warwick

7 East Greenwich

8 South Kingstown

9 Jamestown

10 Jamestown

11 Newport

12 Bristol

13 Fall River

14 Warren

15 East Providence

133

ro
x 10,,
gal./day

PROVIDENCE

15-20

2 40-50-

3.
5
4

.13

P9
10

0 5 10 km
8

Figure A-15. Location of sewage treatment plants discharging
into Narragansett Bay. Over 75 percent of the volume of
discharges flow into the Providence River and Upper Bay.
The plant at Fields Point is by far the largest discharge.

70- 2.52
PROVIDENCE RAINFALL (MGD)
A........ -A PROVIDENCE STP FLOW (MGD)
60- 0---0 PROVIDENCE POPULATION
En
rt
0 0

50-
z - 2.0 a
0 .... A: 0
40
a_

30-
z
0 uJ m

0
>
20- 1.50
cr
m
1958 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 1976
YEAR

135

The impacts of this pollution are many and far reaching. The pollutants
that flow into the Providence River can be traced in the sediments and
water column in a decreasing gradient down the entire Bay. The most
productive shellfish beds are either permanently closed or fall within a
conditional area where harvesting is only occasionally permitted. Pollu-
tion from industrial and municipal discharges and urban runoff is also
having severe repercussions on the Port of Providence where berths for
cargo vessels and tankers are desperately in need of dredging. Because
the sediments in the Upper Bay berths and channels are so heavily polluted,
it is difficult ot impossible to find acceptable sites for,the disposal
of dredge spoils. The low quality and often unpleasant appearance and
odor of the water in the Providence River and Upper Bay has also curtailed
properties has been adversely affected in some Upper Bay areas by the
unpleasant qualities of the water.

The Fields Point Sewage Treatment Plant

Built at the turn of the century as a showcase of modern technology, the
Fields Point sewage treatment plant was designed to treat the domestic
wastes of 200,000 people or about 50 million gallons of waste water a day.
Many years of wear and tear on the equipment and poor maintenance of the
facility have taken their toll. In the last twenty years failures in the
treatment system have been occuring more and more frequently causing
severe pollution problems in the Upper Bay. The plant still treats sewage
from about 200,000 people in Providence, Johnston, North Providence and
parts of Cranston and Lincoln. However, the volume of waste water
entering the plant has been increasing beyond plant capacity in recent
years. According to flow data monitored by DEM the average daily flow was
up to 65 million gallons per day in 1977. The volume of water passing
through the plant has increased because of additional industrial discharges
into the city sewer system and because of groundwater infiltration into
cracks and seams in the pipes. An additional load of water comes into the
treatment system from theProvidence River. Tide gates that were built
to cover the end of the discharge pipes and block river water from flowing
back into the system at high tide have rotted or are jammed open. It
is estimated that as much as one third of the volume that the plant treats
is Providence River water surging back into the system. This could be
reduced by repairing the tidal gates.

The treatment plant was not designed to treat industrial wastes. However,
nearly 1800 firms ranging from commercial laundries to jewelry companies
may discharge into the Providence sewage system. Many of these industrial
discharges contain toxic chemicals that the plant cannot remove from the
water or sludge. Consequently, toxic metals, organic solvents and salts
that are discharged to the municipal sewers, disrupt the treatment process
of the domestic sewage, contaminate the sludge and thus create disposal
problems and further degrading the water quality of the Providence River and
the Upper Bay.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has required the city of
Providence to repair the sewage treatment plant, to assure that the quality
of the water discharged to the Bay meet secondary treatment standards by

136

November 1979. When the city failed to do so, suit was brought by DE11 and
Save the Bay and in May 1980 the U.S. District-Court cited the city
in contempt for failure to rehabilitate the plant. In April 1980, plant
equipment was still not operable, blowers necessary for aerating the sludge
were in pieces, valves were not working, and the activated sludge was not
of the correct composition needed to decompose the sewage, an essential
step in obtaining secondary treatment. Consequently, the city hired an
engineering firm, Krasnoff Associates, to fix the plant. They have made
great strides by replacing most of the piping and building new weirs in
the setting tanks, subsequently improving the quality of the treated water
discharged to the Upper Bay. However, there is still a great deal of
antiquated equipment that needs to be replaced. Aeration beds need to be
repaired and the beach flow of Providence River salt water into the plant
halted before the discharge will be of uniform high quality in compliance
with EPA standards. Equipment failures and maintenance problems occur
almost weekly impeding progress on other plant problems.

In addition to the problems the Providence sewage treatment plant has treating
the regular or "dry weather" load of sewage, the system over loads with
every severe rain storm. Since storm water, industrial wastewater and
municipal sewage all flow into the same network of sewer pipes, whenever
it rains more than 1/2 inch in 24 hours the volume of water flowing
through the sewer system to the plant rises above plant capacity and is
shunted off directly to the river. In addition to the@ overflow at the plant
there are numerous bypasses throughout the piping system that automatically
shunt off storm water overflow to some 65 outfalls along the river. These
are called combined sewer overflows (CSOs) since they are designed to drain
flood waters out of the city by combining it with sewage systems. The state
DEM in cooperation with the EPA is concerned about the effect of this
,urban runoff on water quality in the Upper Bay and have hired an engineering
firm to design ways to treat the sewage that is discharged through the CSOs.
DEM has estimated that they contribute 87 percent of the 440 million
gallons per year of settleable solids that flow to the Bay. They are a
source of coliform bacteria and petroleum hydrocarbons as well. Some of
these overflows are a source of contamination in dry weather as well.
According to an FDA survey conducted in 1977 over 117 automatic sewage by-
passes in the pipes of the Providence system were clogged and stuck open
so that sewage was being @ischarged directly to the Bay"before it even
got to the treatment plant. Maintenance crews were supposed to have fixed
the clogs but there is still considerable dry weather sewage discharge
according to a recent survey by Dr. Eva Hoffman at URI. According to DEM
estimates, the money needed to expand and upgrade the Providence sewage
treatment plant and construction of two holding tanks at the site to
process some of the combined sewage overlow would amount to approximately
$115 million. The federal government was expected to contribute 75 percent
of the cost, the state 15 percent and the local town 10 percent, Unfor-
tunately, the amount of money these groups now have available for this pro--.
ject falls far short of what is needed. As a result the legislature
authorized a referendum for an $80 million bond issue in November to help
make up the cost. If passed, a new authority would be created to collect
user fees, manage construction funds and operate the plant.

137

REFERENCES

Boothroyd, J. and A. Al-Saud. 1979. An Erosion Management Guide for
Narragansett.ilay: Shoreline Types and susceptibility. Unpublished
;*I tl as. Coastal 1'@esources Center, University of Rhode Island, Kingston.

Goldstein, S. and K. Meyer. 1961. Metropolitan and Population Change in
RhodeJsland. Planning Division, Rhode Island Development Council,
State Planning Section. Publication Number 3. Providence, R.I.

McLoughlin, W. 1978. Rhode Island: A History. W. W. Norton and Company.
New York.

Nixon, S. W. and V. Lee. in press. Spatial and Temporal Pollution
Gradients in Narragansett Bay. International Council for Exploration
of the Sea. Presented to Water Quality Committee, Warsaw, Poland,
October 1979.

Olsen, S. and V. Lee. 1979. A Summary and Preliminary Evaluation of Data
Pertaining to the Water Quality of Upper Narragansett Bay. Coastal
Resources Center, University of Rhode Island. Kingston, R.I.

Raytheon Company. 1978. Rhode Island Areawide Water Quality Management
Plan. Urban Runoff Task. Preliminary Evaluation Phase Technical
Memorandum. Prepared for the Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program.

Rhode Island Department of Economic Development. 1979. Basic Economic
Statistics. Providence, R.I.

Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program. 1979. Rhode Island Population
Projection by County, City and Town. Technical Paper Nthnber 83.
Revised April 1979.

Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program. 1979a. 208 Water Quality Manage-
ment Plan for Rhode Island. Draft Plan and Environmental Statement.
Providence, R.I.

Rust, E. 1975. No growth: Impacts on metropolitan areas. Lexington
Books. Lexington, Mass.

United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1971. Census
of Housing. Block Statistics Providence-Pawtucket,, Warwick, R.I.-
Mass. urbanized area. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C.

United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979.
National Wetlands Inventory. Draft large-scale overlay of East
Providence Quadrangle. Newton Corner, Mass.

I NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LISR
@ 11,11, @1111 1111, 1111, 1 IIARY
i @
1 3 6668 14110501 7