Narrow River special area management plan adopted December 8, 1986

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

31,

F
41

twidli
!III H,

GB
rA if
4 Pilo i

991
.R4
N37
1987

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS

COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT COUNCIL
Oliver H. Stedman Government Center
4808 Tower HUI Road
Wakefield. R.I. 02879-1900
(401) 277-2476

ADDENDUM

Tn NARROW RIVER SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN

Section 320.1.A.2.a & b (Effective November 28, 1989)

a) In order to be in conformance with this plan, subdivisions (as defined in
Section 320 of the Coastal Resources Management Plan) shall not exceed a
density of 1 residential unit per 80,000 square feet. For the purposes
of this section, the allowable number of units in conformance with this
standard shall be calculated on the basis of available land suitable for
development. Land suitable for development shall be defined as the net
total acreage of the parcel, lot or tract remaining after exclusion of
the areas containing, or on which occur the following protected
resources: Coastal features as defined within Chapter 46-23 GLRI and/or
the Coastal Resources Management Program Section 210; freshwater wetlands
as defined in Chapter 2-1 GLRI, and/or any rules or regulations of the
Department of Environmental Management, as promulgated thereunder. The
division of a tract, lot or parcel not subject to municipal regulation
under the provision of Chapter 45-23-1, for the reasons set forth
therein, shall remain subject to the jurisdiction of the requirements of
chapter 46-23, the CRMP and this section.

b) Cluster development is recommended as a means to preserve open space,
aesthetic qualities, and agricultural lands, reduce the costs of
development, and minimize the environmental impacts of development. For
CRHC purposes, the number of units in a cluster shall be calculated on
the basis of developable land within the subdivision in accordance with
all local ordinances, and as defined in (a) above. Lands Included within
statutory setbacks from freshwater wetlands as defined in Chapter 2-1
GLRI or any rules and regulations of the Department of Environmental
Management, as promulgated thereunder, and lands to be developed as
streets and roads shall also be excluded from the calculated acreage of
developable land. The density of the cluster development shall not
exceed the standard established in (a) above.

Page 2

Section 320.1.B.3:
Adopted June 21, 1987

3. Areas of Critical Concern. The definition and regulations
pertaining to areas of critical concern apply to those properties platted
after the adoption date of this plan. Alterations, to coastal features or
within 200 feet of a coastal feature on properties platted prior to the
adoption of this plan will, where possible, conform to the regulations of
this section'.

In cases where, due to the size or configuration of a lot that was
platted prior to the adoption of this plan it is not possible to provide a
200 foot buffer, then the determination of the boundaries of a buffer zone
must balance the property owner's rights to enjoy their property with
Council's responsibility to preserve, and where possible, restore ecological
systems. Recommended Buffer Zone shall be established according to the
environmental values and sensitivities of the site as assessed by the
Council's staff engineer and biologist.

Section 320.2 Watershed Controls for Surface Water Runoff (adopted 7-13-93)

Amend Section 320.2.A.2.b to read as follows: (b) Applicants are required
to satisfy the stormwater management requirements included in Section 300.6
of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Program and most recent
version of the Rhode Island Stormwatgr Design and Installation Standards.

Delete Section 320.2.B

Delete Section 320.2.C

Delete Section 320.2.D

Delete Section 320.2.E

Renumber Section 320.F to Section 320.2.B

Renumber Section 320.2.G to Section 320.2.C

Section 320.3 Watershed Controls for Segtic System Kanacrement
(adopted 1-12-93)

section 320.3.B.1 Zxtension of sewer Lines

Continue this program change indefinitely.

Section 420 Management Regulations and Initiatives
(adopted 1-12-93)

Section 420.1.C Controls for Habitat Protection

Filling, removing, or grading (RICRMP, Section 300.2) is prohibited on any
wetland in the Narrow River watershed. For the purposes of this section,
wetlands shall include coastal wetlands (RICRMP, Section 210.3) and all
other wetlands subject to the Rhode island Freshwater wetlands Act (RIFWWA)

Page 3

that are located in the Narrow River watershed. However, the following
exceptions may be permitted by the Council:

1) The fifty (50) foot wetland perimeter and river bank wetland areas
outside the wetland "edge" (RIFWWA, Section 2-1-20 (d) and (g)) shall not be
considered part of the wetland under this section.

2) Filling, removing, or grading of freshwater wetlands within the Narrow
River Watershed, excluding areas regulated as coastal wetlands (RICRMP,
Section 210.3), may receive relief from this prohibition in instances where
filling is required to access otherwise buildable land and when no other
reasonable alternatives for access exist and when the applicant has
satisfied the variance burdens of proof set forth in Section 140 of the
RICRMP. Buildable land shall be defined as a land area which satisfies all
federal, state, and municipal requirements for the intended development. To
be defined as buildable land, the intended development must also satisfy the
requirements in the Narrow River Special Area Management (SAM) Plan and meet
all of the Department of Environmental Management's regulations and
requirements for Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) in "Critical
Resource Areas". In cases where the Council approves filling of a
freshwater wetland in the Narrow River watershed in order to access
otherwise buildable land, the applicant shall be subject to the following
requirements: a) The applicant shall be required to mitigate the area of
wetland lost on a 1 to 1.5 area basis; b) the wetland that is replaced shall
be consistent with that which is filled; c) the mitigation shall take place
on-site and in an area which is hydrologically connected to the impacted
wetland; d) setback and buffer requirements shall be required for the
wetland replacement area; e) enhancement of existing wetland shall not be an
acceptable form of mitigation under this section; f) all wetland replacement
projects will require the approval of the Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management (RIDEM), Division of Freshwater Wetlands; and g)
the applicant shall concurrently submit applications to the RIDEM and to the
CRMC so that a concurrent review of the proposed activities can occur.

Section 520.1
Adopted July 25, 1989

1. Section A, Delete "DO)". Corrected form should read:

A. Construction in coastal high hazard flood zones (V zones), as
defined by federal flood insurance rate maps, shall follow the
regulations as listed in Section 300.3 of the CRMP as amended.

2. Section B, Delete "D(4)". Corrected form should read:

B. Construction in areas of coastal stillwater flood hazards (A
zones), as defined by flood insurance rate maps, shall follow the
regulations as listed in Section 300.3 of the CRMP as amended.

Page 4

Bibliogranhy (adopted 7-13-93)

Coastal Resources Management Council, Rhode Island, 1993. Rhode Island
Stormwater Design and Installation Standards Manual. Wakefield, RI:
Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council

/Jmm
Amended September 22, 1993

The Narrow River
Special Area
Management Plan

Adopted December 8, 1986

This document was prepared
for the Coastal Resources Management Council by

Mary M. Howard-Strobel
Terry G. Simpson
Timothy P. Dillingham

Project Coordinator: Milton Salomon

Published May 1987
Reprinted in November 1989

The preparation of this publication was financed by a grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, under the provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-583).

Copies of this publication are available from the Coastal Resources Management Council, Oliver H.
Stedman Government Center, Tower Hill Road, Wakefield, RI 02879.

cm,

US Department of Commerce
NOAA Coastal Scrvico3 Ccnter Library
CD 2234 South Hobson Avenue
Charleston, SC 29405-2413

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y

INTRODUCTION

The Narrow River Special Area Management Plan describes the
present status of the river, characterizes its watershed, identifies
sources of pollution, and recommends specific actions to restore,
protect and preserve this highly regarded natural resource. Accom-
plishing this involved the collation of data regarding the natural
history of the watershed, past and current land use and development
trends, water quality status, critical wildlife habitats, flood and
storm hazards, and future projects. This information is presented in
the SAM Plan as "Findings of Fact" sections in the various chapters.
Each chapter concludes with the recommended management techniques,
"Management Regulations and Initiatives", aimed at addressing the
issues raised within the chapter.

The findings presented in this plan clearly demonstrate that the
Narrow River has been, and continues to be, threatened by serious
water quality problems. If not addressed, the continuing decline in
the water quality of the river will result in the degradation of a
unique and valuable coastal resource. This would give rise to poten-
tial public health problems, and adversely affect the biological re-
sources, recreational opportunities, and the aesthetic beauty of the
watershed. Thus, the Plan has put forth management policies, pro-
grams, and strategies which are focused on coordination of government
agencies and bodies, identification and restoration of sources of poi-
lution, identification and protection of critical wildlife habitats,
guidance for new uses of the watershed within the limitations of the
environment, and to provide a consistent, ecologically based policy
framework for decisions involving the use of the watershed resources.

THE FRAMEWORK OF MANAGEMENT

The watershed of the Narrow River lies within the political
boundaries of three towns: Narragansett, South Kingstown, and North
Kingstown. Additionally, the use and management of the resources of
the area involves the jurisdiction of a number of state agencies.

The SAM Plan provides several mechanisms to coordinate these
separate governmental bodies, including:

- Sets forth consistent, ecologically based policy recommenda-
tions for the use and protection of the natural resources of
the watershed;

- Assigns special responsibilities to the Small Estuaries Sub-
committee of the Coastal Resources Management Council;

- Recommends procedures to institute more effective and coor-
dinated review of major development proposals;

- Recommends the creation of an Action Committee, composed of
officials from state agencies, municipal governments, and the
general public to undertake non-regulatory initiatives.

THE WATERSHED ENVIRONMENT AND IMPACTS TO WATER QUALITY

The Narrow River and its watershed are truely unique estuarine
and geologic environments. Past development practices have resulted
in serious water quality problems within the estuary today. Measured
bacteria levels have consistently exceeded state standards for Type SA
waters (the present classification of the Narrow River), periodically
restricting the use of the river for shellfishing and invoking concern
for public health. It is probable that the excessive bacterial counts
are indicative of other pollutants, including pathogens and nutrients.
The high rate of Individual Sewage Disposal System (ISDS) failures
within the area, and a large number of stormwater drains discharging
surface runoff to the river are indicated as likely sources of the
contamination problem. The extreme development pressures on the re-
gion threaten to aggravate these problems by encouraging levels of
development beyond the capacity of the watershed to support.

Recommended management strategies center on:

- Identification and restoration of failed ISDS units, including
the prioritization of areas with concentrations of failed
units for sewering;

- Guidelines for control of stormwater runoff into the Narrow
River;

- Guidelines for control of erosion and sedimentation resulting
from construction and upland alterations;

- Identification of the different land uses in the three towns
and tailoring mitigative efforts to the specific needs of
each.

CRITICAL HABITATS

The Narrow River has often been identified as one of the ttgems"
of South County. This characterization is derived in part from the
combination of diverse habitats which create an aesthetically pleasing

environment. These habitats support many wildlife species, each play-
ing a critical role in the viability of the Narrow River. Unfortu-
nately, encroachment of human activity is threatening to destroy these
habitats. Consequently, wildlife species can be lost, threatening the
natural processes essential to functioning of this ecosystem.

Recommendations for management include:

- protection of critical areas (i.e., wetlands, estuarine
waters) through utilization of buffer zones;

- encouragement of land management practices such as conserva-
tion easements, conservancy zoning, and direct acquistion;

- public education and cognizance of unique and critical areas.

FLOOD AND STORM HAZARDS

A steady increase in deVelopment has occurred within the flood
plain of the Narrow River. This growth, combined with the conversion
of summer homes to year-round use, increases the flood and storm
vulnerability of the area. Records indicate substantial damages have
occurred in the past; should a serious hurricane strike this area
today, damages will be much more extensive. There also exists within
the watershed, an extensive wetland system which serves to modify
flooding effects and help mitigate the level of flooding.

Presently, no post-storm restoration plan exists which considers
the potential impacts of flood plain reconstruction to the river. In
addition, the CRMC is not formally linked with statewide emergency
response procedures for re-permitting development after the disaster.
Haphazard redevelopment can have adverse effects on the Narrow River
ecosystem.

Management recommendations include:

- protection and preservation of wetlands, which serve in flood
abatement;

- development of a post-storm restoration plan;

- coordination of the CRMC and other regulatory agencies in-
volved with disaster response and redevelopment.

IMPACTS OF PLANNED AND FUTURE PROJECTS

Several projects are planned or have already been approved within
the watershed limits. Such projects include the extension of Route

iii

138 and the rehabilitation of Route IA. Other projects are specula-
tive, but have the potential for planning, design, and implementation.
These include dredging and bridge reconstruction. Impacts of such
major projects on the Narrow River can contribute to the degradation
of water quality and threaten or destroy critical habitat areas.

Sea level is a major concern to all coastal domains. Although
not a specific project, it is a future modification to the present
status of the watershed. The predicted rise in sea level may cause
the loss of valuable wetlands, induce intrusion of saltwater into
groundwater supplies, and flood low-lying areas.

Management strategies focus on:

- development of a cooperative review for major projects which
specifically consider the cumulative and direct impacts on the
Narrow River ecosystem;

- recommendation of detailed studies prior to any alterations or
modifications within the Narrow River.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ................................................ i
Table of Contents ................................................ v
Acknowledgments .................................................. ix
Participating Committee Members .................................. xi
List of Figures .................................................. xiii
List of Tables ................................................... xvii

CHAPTER I: Introduction

Section 110. The Narrow River Special Area Management Plan ...... 3
120. Past Management Efforts in the Watershed ........... 6
130. Watershed Uses and Values .......................... 7
140. Goals of the Plan .................................. 8

CHAPTER II: Framework of Management

Section 210. Findings of Fact ................................... 11
210.1 Management Authority .............................. 11
210.2 The Need for Growth Management in the Region ...... 12
210.3 Problems with the Present Permitting Process ...... 13

Section 220. Management Regulations and Initiatives ............. 15
220.1 Management Objectives ............................. 15
220.2 CRMC Small Estuaries Subcommittee ................. 15
220.3 Cooperative Permit Review Procedures .............. 16
220.4 Major Activities Requiring Notification of the
Permit Coordinator ................................ 18
220.5 Agencies Involved in the Cooperative Permit
Review ............................................ 19
220.6 The Action Committee .............................. 19

CHAPTER III: The Watershed Environment and Impacts to Water Quality

Section 310. Findings of Fact ................................... 23
310.1 Introduction ...................................... 23
310.2 Natural Features Affecting Water Quality .......... 23
310.3 Land Use Within the Watershed ..................... 27
310.4 Water Quality Status .............................. 37
310.5 Buffer Zones ...................................... 50
310.6 Summary ........................................... 54

Section 320. Management Regulations and Initiatives ............. 55
320.1 Land Use Classification for Water Quality
Protection ........................................ 55
320.2 Watershed Controls for Storm Water Runoff ......... 66
320.3 Watershed Controls for Septic System Management ... 73
320.4 Watershed Controls for Erosion and Sedimentation.. 75
320.5 Lands Requiring Special Considerations ............ 77
320.6 Petroleum Tanks and Oil Spills .................... 77
320.7 Community Participation ........................... 78
320.8 Future Research Needs ............................. 79

CHAPTER IV: Critical Habitat

Section 410. Findings of Fact ................................... 83
410.1 Introduction ...................................... 83
410.2 The Wetlands Habitat .............................. 83
410.3 The Open Water and Aquatic Habitat ................ 91
410.4 The Terrestrial Habitat ........................... 99
410.5 Summary ........................................... 101

Section 420. Management Regulations and Initiatives ............. 102
420.1 Controls for Habitat Protection ................... 102
420.2 Acquisition of Environmentally Sensitive Lands .... 102
420.3 Public Education Programs ......................... 103

CHAPTER V: Flood and Storm Hazards

Section 510. Findings of Fact ................................... 107
510.1 Introduction ...................................... 107
510.2 Occurrences of Storm Events ....................... 110
510.3 Vulnerability of the Flood Plain .................. 113
510.4 Storm Hazard Management ........................... 115
510.5 Summary ........................................... 116

Section 520. Management Regulations and Initiatives ............. 117
520.1 Construction Standards in Flood Zones ............. 117
520.2 Controls for Protection of Flood Prone Areas ...... 118

CHAPTER VI: Impacts of Planned and Future Projects

Section 610. Findings of Fact .................................. 121
610.1 Dredging ......................................... 121
610.2 Road and Bridge Alterations ...................... 124
610.3 Sea Level Rise ................................... 128
610.4 Summary .......................................... 129

Section 620. Management Regulations and Initiatives ............ 131

REFERENCES ....................................................... 135

APPENDIX At Watershed Constraint Maps ........................... A-1

APPENDIX B: Glossary ............................................ B-1

PHOTO CREDITS

Photo for Chapter 1 title page, Timothy Dillingham; Chapter 4 title
page, Kay Howard-Strobel; Cover photo and all other title pages,
Terry Simpson.

vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This plan is the culmination of the efforts of many individuals
whose concern for the Narrow River has persevered.

First and foremost to be thanked are the members of the Narrow
River Advisory Committee. Their constant flow of ideas and sugges-
tions throughout the numerous meetings, drafts, and nuances of the SAM
planning process contributed significantly to the final form of the
plan. Members of the Small Estuaries Subcommittee of the CRMC also
attended meetings, providing their expertise in dealing with coastal
resource management issues.

The CRMC staff, specifically George Seavey, Ken Anderson, Nick
Pisani, Linda Steere, and Irene Kenenski also deserve special thanks
for their comments, based on many years of working in the front line
trenches, handling coastal applications.

We would also like to thank several citizens awareness groups,
including the Narrow River Preservation Association, Save The Bay, and
the Middlebridge Association, whose enthusiasm and support for this
plan was much appreciated. We are also indebted to the many re-
searchers, scientists, and students from the various state and local
educational institutions, whose devotion to studying the Narrow River
provided us with the data base from which we were able to characterize
the problems affecting the river. Many thanks go to those long time
residents of the watershed who took of their own time to contact us
concerning past experiences and anecdotes of life along the river,
developing within us a personal attraction for the unique value of the
river.

Margaret Petruny-Parker provided the initial guidance and direc-
tion from which we were able to proceed with a clear concept of the
purpose of the planning effort. Virginia Lee, of URI's Coastal Re-
sources Center reviewed drafts, offered valuable suggestions, and
also provided encouragement along the way.

Special thanks are extended to Scott Millar, senior planner with
the Rhode Island Division of Planning, and Lorraine Joubert of the
Department of Environmental Management for their continued comments and
support.

Many of the engineers and planners from the towns of North Kings-
town South Kingstown, and Narragansett, provided us with invaluable
insights into the problems significant at the local level. In parti-
cular, the comments and support provided by Clarkson Collins, Environ-

cular, the comments and support provided by Clarkson Collins, Environ-
mental Coordinator of the town of Narragansett and Anna Praeger, South
Kingstown Town planner, were extremely useful.

Special consideration is given to Jean Krul of the Coastal Re-
sources Center, who spent many hours typing the initial draft, memos,
and letters for which we are most thankful.

Countless versions of the figures and photographs for the plan
were prepared by Betsy Watkins, Marion McHugh, Linda DeFusco, and
Steve Silvia of the illustration department of the URI Narragansett Bay
Campus, for which we are greatly indebted. Mapping efforts by Marina
Havan-Orumieh, a student at the University of Rhode Island, were also
helpful.

Vicki Desjardins and Larry Pearce of the URI Publications depart-
ment provided creative talent to the layout and design of the final
draft.

PARTICIPATING COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Narrow River Advisory Committee

Sherrie Blott, Narragansett
Peg Brady, Save the Bay
Patrick Brady, Narragansett
Robert Brown, Dept. of Transportation
Clarkson Collins, Narragansett Environmental Coordinator
Stephen Crolius, Narragansett
Virginia Fitch, Historical Preservation Commission
Joseph Frisella, South Kingstown
Gary Galkin, Save the Bay
Paul Hargraves, South Kingstown
Hazel Hollman, Narragansett
Armand Houston, Building Contractor
Lorraine Joubert, Dept. of Environmental Management
Marty LaFarge, North Kingstown
Robert Leeson, Narragansett
John Maciel, Jr., South Kingstown
Elizabeth MacLaughlin, North Kingstown
Joseph Mannarino, North Kingstown Town Planner
Juan Martinez, Soil Conservation Service
Elaine McGeough, Real Estate Agent
John McAleer, North Kingstown
Scott Millar, Division of Planning
Anna Prager, South Kingstown Town Planner
John Scott, Marine Biologist
Margaret Stone, Narragansett
Alfred Testa, Jr., Narragansett
William Waring, III, North Kingstown
Edward Williams, North Kingstown

CRMC Small Estuaries Subcommittee

Charles "Ted" Wright, Chairman
Donald C. Brown
Kathyrn G. Owen
George L. Sisson, Jr.
Joseph F. Turco
William Miner, Chairman, CRMC

Grover J. Fugate, Executive Director, CRMC

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1-1. Location of the Narrow River Watershed within Rhode
Island ..................................................... 4

1-2. Water bodies of the Narrow River system .................... 5

3-1. A perspective view of the topography and surficial geo-
logy of the Narrow River watershed (from River Landscapes,
1976) ...................................................... 24

3-2. Longitudinal cross-section of the two northern basins
and Carr (Pausacaco) Pond showing the dynamics of the
water regime and stratification feature (from Orr and
Gaines, 1973) .............................................. 26

3-3. The growth rate trend in the Narrow River watershed
from 1944 to 1985 .......................................... 28

3-4. Land use distribution within the Narrow River watershed
(based on data from 1985-86 aerial photos and municipal
tax maps) .................................................. 30

3-5. Distribution of the open lands within the Narrow River
watershed (based on data from 1985 aerial photos,
National Wetlands Inventory of 1979, and 1985-86 municipal
tax maps) .................................................. 31

3-6. Location of major roadways in the watershed ................ 33

3-7. Zoning distribution within the watershed, 1986 ............. 36

3-8a. Percentage of samples, collected by the RI DEM, exceed-
ing state limits for total coliform levels from 1980
to 1985 .................................................... 38

3-8b. Percentage of samples, collected by RI DEM, exceeding
state limits for fecal coliform levels from 1980 to
1985 ....................................................... 39

3-9. Total coliform levels measured during the summer months
in 1974, along the Narrow River. Numbers plotted in the
graph refer to the station numbers along the river. The
two dashed lines in the graph represent the uppermost
level for each standard: shellfishina and swimming (data
from Repasz and Hargraves, 1974) ........................... 41

xiii

3-10. Total coliform levels measured throughout the year of
1979 along the Narrow River. Numbers plotted in the
graph refer to the station numbers along the river.
The two dashed lines in the graph represent the upper
most level for each standard: shellfishing and swim-
ming (data from Seiberth, 1983) ............................ 42

3-11. Location of storm drains surveyed by the RI DEM ............ 43

3-12. Location of neighborhoods surveyed by RIPE, Inc., 1981 ..... 46

3-13. Location of aquifer and groundwater recharge zone .......... 53

3-14. Location map key to land use classification maps ........... 56

3-15. Land use classification for North Kingstown, Map A ........ 57

3-16. Land use classification for North Kingstown, Map B ......... 58

3-17. Land use classification for South Kingstown, Map C ......... 59

3-18. Land use classification for South Kingstown, Map D ......... 60

3-19. Land use classification for Narragansett, Map E ............ 61

3-20. Land use classification for Narragansett, Map F ............ 62

3-21. Land use classification for Narragansett, Map G ............ 63

4-1. Net primary productivity of selected ecosytems, in grams
carbon/year (From Tiner, 1985) ............................. 84

4-2. Values and hazards associated with the various wetlands
found within the Narrow River watershed (From Kusler and
Harwood, 1977) ............................................. 85

4-3. Percent composition of wetlands in the Narrow River
Watershed .................................................. 86

4-4. Location of shellfish beds in the Narrow River. Numbers
indicate the approximate mean density of shellfish recorded
(Data from Baczenski and Ganz, 1980) ....................... 97

5-1. A simplified model of the Narrow River channel and flood-
plain (from Keller, 1975) .................................. 108

5-2. Flood hazard areas (Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources Flood Insurance, St. Paul, 1972) ................ 109

xiv

5-3. Trends in residential development within the watershed
since the last major hurricane (1954) ...................... 114

6-1. Planned alterations to Route 138. New construction and
upgrading extend from Route 1, in the Narrow River water-
shed, to Interstate Highway 95 (From R.I. DOT, 1984) ....... 123

6-2. Location of the proposed construction of Route 138, rela-
tive to Pendar Pond (From R.I. DOT, 1984) .................. 125

6-3. Location of the groundwater recharge and aquifer in the
headwaters region with Route 138 superimposed. Solid
line indicates existing road; dashed line represents
planned extension .......................................... 126

6-4. Comparison of the length of river basin drowned by the
rise in sea level in two southern Rhode Island Rivers
(Cox, et al., 1983) ......................................... 130

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

2-1 CRMC Permit Application Procedure .......................... 14

3-1. Existing and potential development in the Narrow River
watershed .................................................. 32

3-2. DEM Storm Drain Survey (Total coliform/Fecal coliform
ratio in MPN/100 mls) ...................................... 44

3-3. Summary of RIPE, Inc. Survey, 1980 ......................... 47

4-1. Predominant wetlands vegetation of the Narrow River
watershed .................................................. 87

4-2. Birds of the Narrow River wetlands habitat (data from
Enser, 1986; Gould, 1986) .................................. 89

4-3. Rare and uncommon wildlife of the Narrow River wetlands
habitat (data from Enser, 1986) ............................ 90

4-4. Submerged aquatic vegetation observed in the Narrow River
estuary ( data from Wright, et al., 1949) ................... 93

4-5. Finfish in the Narrow River (data from Horton, 1958; Gordon,
1960; Mulkana, 1964; Bond, 1968; Burgess, 1971; O'Keefe,
1972; O'Brien, 1977; Bengston, 1982 ........................ 95

4-6. Minimum Size and Catch for Shellfish in the Narrow River ... 98

5-1. Lots of Record Located within the Narrow River Flood-
plain ...................................................... 108

5-2. Hurricane Events Impacting the Narrow River Watershed
(data from Narragansett Times archives) .................... 111

xvii

Chapter One.
Introduction

AL
FW7

110. The Narrow (Pettaguamscutt) River Special Area Management Plan

A. Special Area Management represents a new phase in environmental
planning, which has already had some success both on national and
local levels. The strategy behind the development of Special Area
Management involves recognition of all components involved in a spe-
cific ecosystem and the complexity of interactions which have evolved
among these components. Subsequently, the disturbance or alteration
of just one component of the system can have far-reaching effects,
often unexpected and occasionally irreversible.

B. The development of the Special Area Management Plan for the Narrow
River watershed, located in the towns of North Kingstown, South
Kingstown, and Narragansett (Figure 1-1), resulted from the merger of
two ideas. The first idea was the adoption of a Special Area Manage-
ment Plan for the salt pond region of southern Rhode Island, a prece-
dent setting management strategy for the state, which tailored the
legislative and regulatory powers of the Coastal Resources Management
Council (CRMC) to the specific problems of the Salt Ponds. The second
idea was the urgent need for strong management policies within the the
Narrow River watershed, which encompasses several unique water bodies
(Figure 1-2). Past building practices and current building pressures
within the watershed have led to water quality degradation, human
encroachment on critical habitat areas, limited public access, and a
decrease in the aesthetic value.

C. In September, 1985, the Narrow River Special Area Management
planning effort began, with the aim of detailing specific management
strategies for the CRMC through a plan tailored to the watershed which
considers all components of the ecosystem. A comprehensive character-
ization of the existing status of the watershed was documented through
collation and summarization of available research reports provided by
consulting firms, scientists from the University of Rhode Island,
state agencies, student theses and dissertations, and town and commun-
ity records. From this documentation, past and present problems were
evaluated and management strategies and initiatives were developed
concerning use and protection of the ecosystem. Specific aspects
addressed in the study include water quality, land use, critical hab-
itats, storm hazards, and impacts from future uses.

D. The characterization and evaluation of the river and the subse-
quent management strategies were combined to create the SAM Plan. The
focus of the SAM Plan included several problems that had been unsuc-
cessfully addressed in the past:

1. Degradation in water quality;

2. High rate and density of ISDS failures;

3. Development pressures in the watershed forcing encroachment

NARROW RIVER
NARRAGANSETT BAY:
WATERSHED

NO.KINGSTOWN

SO.KINGSTOWN
CIO

NARRAGANSETT

S
PjA0
0 C, \/, @s
0 12mi

Figure 1-1. Location of the Narrow River watershed in the state
of Rhode Island.

SILVER SPRING LAKE
MATTA TUXETT RIVER

PAUSACACO
7 (CARR)
SHADY POND
LEA POND

GILBERT
STUART
STREAM
UPPER POND

CASEY'S SILL

LOWER POND

NARROW
(PETTAQUAMSCUTT)
RIVER

THE NARROWS

IXPETTAOUAMSCUTT
/r--J COVE

Figure 1-2. Water bodies of the Narrow River System.

into areas unsuitable to build, i.e., wetlands, slopes great-
er than 10%, soils with very high or very low drainage capac-
ity, and along the shoreline;

4. Potential loss of several rare and uncommon wildlife species
and habitat critical for their survival;

5. Loss of aesthetic value.

E. A building moratorium was imposed by the CRMC at the onset of the
planning process. The moratorium applied to all applications within
an area 200 feet inland of mean high water, or the inland edge of a
coastal feature (i.e., wetlands, bluffs, or river bank), and all CRMC
permits required by subdivisions of six units or more and facilities
requiring a parking area of one acre or more throughout the watershed.
All permit applications received after September 24, 1985 were in-
cluded under the moratorium, which extended through December 31, 1986.
Applications submitted for review after this date became subject to
the guidelines and regulations set forth in the plan.

F. The moratorium served an important function by preventing a flood
of development applications prior to the completion of the SAM Plan.
This increased the plan's effective implementation towards the goal of
preserving, protecting, and restoring the Narrow River watershed.

120. Past Management Efforts in the Watershed

A. The Narrow River Preservation Association (NRPA), a local environ-
mental group founded in 1970, helped to organize and partially fund
the Tri-Town Narrow River Planning Committee, which attempted the
first comprehensive planning study of the river. A consulting firm
was hired and completed a report entitled: A Plan for the Narrow River
Watershed (River Landscapes, 1976). The focus of this plan was to
evaluate development trends and potential impacts within the water-
shed, and recommend techniques to control the location and rate of
growth. Two more groups evolved as a result of the recommendations
from this plan, the Narrow River Watershed Advisory Council and The
Narrow River Land Trust.

B. The Narrow River Watershed Advisory Council was formed in 1981 and
was comprised of representatives from each of the three towns whose
political boundaries encompassed a portion of the watershed. The
mandate of the Advisory Council was to "promote and provide for the
perpetuation of the watershed's value to all". The Council, in turn,
appointed a Narrow River Watershed Advisory Commission, also composed
of representatives from the three towns. The Watershed Commission was
directed to "develop and administer a watershed program, to make
recommendations on town and regional policies, to formulate a compre-
hensive plan for the watershed area, and to collect and analyze data

on watershed resources".

C. The Narrow River Land Trust, established in 1983, is private non-
profit group able to aquire property and certain property rights in
order to preserve lands within the watershed. The Land Trust, which
recently received a small parcel of saltmarsh in the central reach of
the river, and NRPA continue to work toward their goal of preserving
and protecting the watershed.

130. Watershed Uses and Resource Values

A. The Narrow River, because of its unusual and diverse nature, has
sustained extensive occupation along uplands and the shoreline for at
least 3,000 years. Throughout this time, the area has been utilized
successfully for such activities as hunting and gathering, commercial
farming, ship building, and more recently, extensive residential use.
The earliest record of occupation, established through archaelogical
excavations, indicate that Native American Indians inhabited the river
edge areas (RIHPC, 1983). In the early 1700's, development of the
uplands began with the division of land into large plantations. Pro-
duce, fertilized with seaweed from Narragansett Bay, and dairy pro-
ducts from these farms were considered the finest in New England and
were shipped to nearby cities from Boston Neck. In the early 1800's
shipbuilding became a major industry along the river; many centerboard
vessels built here were used extensively for trade with the West
Indies (PHS, 1963). The river was used predominantlv as a summer
resort area during the 1900's. The upgrading of roads and increasing
use of automobiles initiated conversion from seasonal housing to the
more recent year round use. The Rhode Island Historical Preservation
Commission, which has sponsored studies throughout the watershed area,
plays an active role in protecting many of these cultural resources by
identifying significant sites and working toward their preservation.

B. The Narrow River provides many uses and values that are beneficial
to the surrounding communities and to a diverse wildlife population.
The river is a vast recreational resource providing a place to swim,
fish, shellfish, canoe, motorboat, windsurf, and waterski. Many resi-
dents and visitors hike, camp, picnic, and birdwatch along the shores.
The river valley is recognized as one of the most scenic areas in
Rhode Island, and possesses a variety of unique water and land forms
along its entire length.

C. Many species of wildlife utilize the estuary and adjacent wetlands
as a primary food source, a rest stop along migratory pathways, and as
breeding, nesting, and spawning grounds. Several rare and unusual
species have been documented, including several species of marsh
grass, osprey, Least Tern, sea cucumber, moonfish, luminescent moss,
and a small stand of very diverse ferns.

D. Scientists from the nearby University of Rhode Island use the
estuary and bounding habitats frequently for scientific investiga-
tions. Topics of the resulting studies range from the geologic evolu-
tion of the basin and river valley (Gaines, 1975) to the habits of the
marsh dwelling hermit crab (Rebach, 1970). Local schools also utilize
the watershed as an educational resource, exploring the ecological
importance of the marshes and adjacent estuarine and upland habitats.

140. Goals of the Plan

A. The goals for the Plan were derived from several advisory commit-
tee planning sessions and served as a guide for establishing the
recommendations included herin.

B. The Narrow River Special Area Mangement Plan goals are as follows:

1. To provide for a balance of compatible uses, consistent with
the CRMC responsibility for preserving, protecting, and re-
storing coastal resources; specifically, to guide the actions
of private citizens, municipalities and state agencies in the
restoration and maintenance of environmental quality in the
Narrow River;

2. To provide a regional plan for the Narrow River that recog-
nizes that the watershed functions as an ecosystem; specifi-
cally to protect, restore, and maintain the chemical, physi-
cal, and biological integrity of the Narrow River; to encour-
age the protection of natural systems and the use of them in
ways which do not impair their beneficial functioning; to
minimize the transport of pollutants to the waters of the
estuary; to maintain and protect groundwater resources; to
protect and maintain natural salinity levels in estuarine
areas; to minimize erosion and sedimentation; to prevent
damage to wetlands, and; to protect, restore, and maintain
the habitat of fish and wildlife.

3. To create a decision-making process appropriate to the man-
agement of the watershed as an ecosystem, specifically insur-
ing consideration of long term cumulative impacts.

Chapter Two.
The Framework of
Management

WOO**

210. FINDINGS OF FACT

210.1 Management Authorities

A. The legislative mandate for ecosystem-based planning and manage-
ment of Rhode Island's coastal region is set forth in the Coastal
Resource's Management Council's (CRMC) enabling legislation and de-
scribes the resource management process as follows:

1. Identify all of the state's coastal resources: water,
submerged lands, air space, finfish, shellfish, minerals,
physiographic features, and so forth;

2. Evaluate these resources in terms of their quantity, quality,
capability for use, and other key characteristics;

3. Describe the current and potential uses of each resource;

4. Determine the current and potential problems of each
resource;

5. Formulate plans and programs for the management of each resource,
identify permitted uses, locations, protection measures, and so
forth;

6. Carry out these resource management programs through implementing
authority and coordination of state, federal, local, and private
activities;

7. Formulate standards where these do not exist, and reevaluate
existing standards;

An initial series of resource management activities shall be
initiated through this basic process, then each phase shall
continuously be recycled and used to modify the Council's
resource managment programs and keep them current (GLRI 48-
23-1).

B. While the CRMC has direct and comprehensive authority over the
Narrow River and its shoreline, its direct inland regulatory author-
ities are limited. The municipalities possess the primary authority
for the watershed that forms the terrestrial portion of the estuarine
ecosystem. The authorities and responsibilities of the CRMC, munici-
pal governments, the Department of Environmental Management, the
Marine Fisheries Council, and the Department of Transportation are
probably sufficient to effectively manage the Narrow River ecosystem.
The challenge lies in coordinating the individual actions of these
authorities towards the implementation of a consistent management
policy. The Narrow River Special Area Management Plan provides a

policy framework around which to build the needed coordination among
the various authorities, private organizations, and individuals. Dur-
ing its development, the municipalities involved, state and federal
agencies, and citizens of the watershed actively participated in the
formulation of the policy decisions embodied in the Plan. Its effec-
tive implementation can only be assured by sincere adherence to the
agreed upon objectives. Each of the involved parties, the citizens
and town councils of the municipalities, the developers, the state
agencies, and the CRMC have unique and individual roles to play within
the implementation of the Plan. Each also bears a unique responsibil-
ity for its success.

210.2 The Need for Growth Management in the Region

A. The manner in which continuing residential development is regu-
lated and managed in the Narrow River watershed is the critical factor
in preventing degradation of the coastal ecosystem due to impacts from
improper or insensitive development practices (see Chapter III). The
major factors that determine how and when further development will
proceed are municipal zoning and subdivision regulations, state regu-
latory programs, and the application of acquisition, conservation, and
municipal tax policies to undeveloped lands. Nearly 68% of the water-
shed is presently undeveloped, with the greatest proportion of such
lands in the towns of North Kingstown and South Kingstown.

B. The manner in which open lands are developed or preserved will be
a principal determinant of the future water quality in the Narrow
River. These lands also hold the region's future as either a unique
environment of exceptional quality, or another suburb where such
character is reduced and destroyed. The Narrow River watershed is
located in one of the fastest growing areas of the state, and has
experienced steady growth over the past 40 years (see Chapter III).
The development pressures place powerful economic incentives on the
conversion of present open space to residential use. The preservation
of the environmental quality of the watershed, and the prevention of
public health hazards require that growth within the watershed be
managed in a coordinated, planned manner, cognizant of the natural
constraints within the watershed.

C. The SAM Plan is built from an ecosystem-based examination of the
resources, their capabilities for use, the problems, and the existing
institutions of the watershed. Its policies and regulations are
designed specifically to insure the preservation of the vital elements
of the ecosystem, to guide future development within the limitations
of the land, and to resolve existing problems.

210.3 Problems with the Present Permitting Process

A. Agencies of state and local government which are engaged in the
review process grant permits in a sequential, usually isolated manner.
This reduces the integration of the diverse concerns of individual
agencies. While the decisions reached in this manner may be legally
valid, they forego the opportunity to increase their effectiveness.
Sequential decision making is also inefficient, and often frustrating
for an individual desiring to undertake a project that requires per-
mits from several agencies.

B. A person wishing to develop a parcel within the region is often
required to obtain approvals for the building or subdivision (from
several town commissions), approval for on-site sewage disposal sys-
tems (from DEM's ISDS Section), a Water Quality Certificate and wet-
lands permit (from DEM's Division of Water Resources), and after all
other permits have been obtained, a CRMC assent (Table 2-1). If vari-
ances or special exceptions have to be obtained anywhere along the
line, the applicant's flexibility to respond to the concerns of other
authorities become constrained. An applicant who has received some of
the necessary approvals may be forced to renegotiate if an agency
finds the constraints imposed by other permits unacceptable. The
process takes months or even years and may involve several lengthy
hearings before various permitting bodies. The process is expensive
since engineers, surveyors, planners, and/or lawyers must be paid to
guide the plan through the process. Expensive plans must sometimes be
revised as the various permits are negotiated.

C. Municipal government is frequently frustrated because, as the
agency with the primary responsibility over land development and often
with the greatest concern for the potential impacts of the develop-
ment, it is the first in line and must act without the benefits of the
expert reviews of state agency staffs. Conversely, the ability of the
state agencies to work with the developer to mitigate potential im-
pacts and prepare an optimal plan is severely constrained once the
applicant has received municipal approvals. The CRMC, which has the
broadest powers to consider environmental impacts, is often the most
constrained, since its procedures make it the last agency to grant a
permit and quite frequently, the last agency to be consulted (Olsen
and Lee, 1984).

Table 2-1. CRMC Permit Application Procedure

Permit Application Filed
I I

Municipal Officials Public Notice of Pending Division of Planning
Interested Groups or Application Department of Environmental Management
Individuals Division of Fish & Wildlife
Interested Federal Agencies Division of Planning and Development
Division of Water Resources
R.I. Historic Preservation Commission

Division of Planning 30 day review period CRMC Engineering & Biology Staff
- consistency with State Guide Reports
Plan Division of Water Resources:
Comments from interested parties certificate of water quality
federal agencies standards
state agencies Site visit by:
municipal agencies CRMC biologist & engineer
municipal officials Council member
private groups/individuals

objection and/or no objection
request for hearing

Contested case

Public Hearing before Council Subcommittee All comments and staff reports reviewed
by full council
See note below
I - I

Public Hearing Record and Subcommittee Submission of new evidence where applica
recommendation submitted to the
full Council

Council decides on application7
F Notice of decision sent

Note: Public Hearingo=nltl
not commence until c a P. rties entitled to judicial review
and field reports are received F
from the CRMC staff engineer &
biologist; comments on water
quality standards from DEM;
Division of Planning comments,
and comments from the RI Historic
Preservation Commission

220. MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS AND INITIATIVES

220.1 Management Objectives

A. A primary objective of this Plan is to reinforce and supplement
the new mechanisms which were introduced in the CRMC Salt Ponds
Special Area Management Plan, to provide guidance to decision making
by the various authorities within the watershed, and to improve coor-
dination of the regulatory permitting process. This shall be accom-
plished through the following:

1. Assigning special responsibilities to the CRMC Small
Estuaries Subcommittee;

2. A cooperative permit review procedure for major activities
involving a process of consultations with involved agencies
early in the planning process, and

3. The creation of an Action Committee responsible for coordina-
ting further planning, education programs and other nonregu-
latory initiatives.

B. The cooperative permit-ting procedure will not alter existing
authorities or change the legal basis or sequence by which permits are
issued. Agencies will continue to be constrained by their specific
legislative authority to act upon limited aspects of a proposal, and
applicants must continue to meet the requirements and criteria of each
permitting agency. The purpose of the cooperative procedure is:

1. To reduce time and expense incurred by the applicant during
the permitting process;

2. To evaluate major development proposals on the basis of
shared expertise from each permitting agency;

3. To identify and evaluate major impacts on the ecosystem at
the beginning of the permitting process;

4. To reduce possible conflicts with regulatory program re-
quirements by making the applicant aware of what is to be
expected prior to entering the permitting process.

220.2 CRMC Small Estuaries Subcommittee

A. The CRMC Small Estuaries Subcommittee shall serve as the coor-
dinating body of planning and regulatory activities in the Narrow
River watershed. It shall promote the CRMC legislative mandate which
states that "preservation and restoration of ecological systems shall

be the primary guiding principle upon which environmental alteration
of coastal resources will be measured, judged and regulated" (GLRI 46-
23-1).

B. The CRMC Small Estuaries Subcommittee shall:

1. Where possible, review all applications for contested
Category B Assents and Special Exceptions within the Narrow
River watershed and prepare recommendations on these permit-
ting decisions for full CRMC consideration and action.

2. Coordinate actions with local, state, regional, and federal
agencies and private interests; the Subcommittee shall act
jointly with the Action Committee when implementing nonregu-
latory management initiatives contained in this plan (GLRI
46-23-6Af).

3. Make recommendations to the full Council, which shall
serve as an arbitration board "in any matter of dispute
involving the resources of the Narrow River and the
interests of two or more municipal or state agencies"
(GLRI 46-23-6Ce). The Subcommittee recommendations
shall be referred to the full Council for a binding
decision.

4. Encourage research on management issues in the Narrow River
watershed and advise the Governor, the General Assembly, and
the public on coastal matters (GLRI 46-23-6c).

220.3 Cooperative Permit Review Procedures

A. The towns located within the Narrow River watershed shall be
invited bv the CRMC to designate an appropriate official to serve as
the Permit Coordinator for the Cooperative Review process. Parties
proposing an activity listed in Section 220.4 below shall notify the
Permit Coordinator before a formal application is filed for any muni-
cipal or state permit.

B. The Permit Coordinator shall meet with the applicant to identify:

1. The permits and regulations that are likely to be involved;

2. Characteristics of the proposal which are likely to pose
environmental issues, impacts, or conflicts with existing
regulatory policies and plans.

C. Upon the recommendation of the Permit Coordinator, the applicant
shall submit the following information:

1. A locus map of the site and a general description of the
project;

2. A soils map of the property (suggested scale I inch = 100
feet) with an accompanying analysis of the best use potential
of the soils present; the soils map and use potential pre-
pared by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service should serve
as the basis for this analysis;

3. A map of identical scale (i.e., soils map) showing the prin-
cipal vegetation types or any significant features identi-
fied by the Natural Heritage Program of the DEM and the RI
Historic Preservation Commission on the property;

4. A topographic map of identical scale (i.e., soils map) show-
ing surface drainage patterns and information on the depth
to groundwater and the estimated direction and volume of
groundwater flows;

5. A map, or aerial photographs, of identical scale (i.e., soils
map) showing a delineation of coastal and freshwater wetland
boundaries on the project site, and a delineation of the
extent of the 100 year floodplain as shown on the most
recent Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance
Rate Maps (FIRMs);

6. A preliminary schematic map showing the proposed development,
including, as appropriate, buildings, roadways, parking
areas, drainage systems, sewage treatment and disposal facil-
ities and undisturbed lands. Some of the above maps may be
deemed unnecessary by the Permit Coordinator when activities
other than subdivisions are considered.

D. The town Permit Coordinator shall forward a request for review of
the proposed project to all agencies that may be required to issue
permits for the proposed alterations, or any other participating or
interested agency (Section 220.5), with copies of the required infor-
mation.

E. The submitted information shall be reviewed by the participating
agencies for conformance or potential conflicts with the regulatory
requirements and policies, or significant environmental impacts,
within their respective areas of jurisdiction. Any and all comments
pertaining to these issues, or any other which the particular agency
deems relevant, shall be submitted to the Permit Coordinator.

F. Upon completetion of all review and comment, if no objections or
concerns are raised by any of the participating agencies, the appli-
cant may apply for the necessary permits. The Permit Coordinator
shall provide the applicant with copies of all comments received from

participating agencies and organizations, including a list of neces-
sary permits and the permit application sequence. Comments and recom-
mendations resulting from this review process are for the purpose of
educating the applicant as to the permit process, and in no way repre-
sent formal or conditional permit approval.

G. If any participating agency raises any objection to, or concern
with the proposed project, or requests a cooperative review conference
as a result of their review, the Permit Coordinator shall schedule a
pre-application conference between the applicant and all participating
agencies. The purpose of the conference shall be to:

1. Identify and discuss the major design alternatives or modifi-
cations which may resolve the raised objections, or concerns;

2. Discuss the likely impacts of such alternatives, or modifica-
tions on the affected site and ecosystem;

3. Insure that recommendations for any such alternative or
modification will not create conflict with any other agen-
cies' permit requirements, basis for review, or review
recommendations;

220.4 Major Activities Requiring Notification of the Permit
Coordinator

A. The following activities require notification of the permit coor-
dinator:

1. New subdivisions of 6 units or more.

2. Facilities requiring or creating more than 10,000 square feet
of total impervious surface.

3. Construction or extension of municipal, private, or indus-
trial sewage facilities or systems, conduits, or intercep-
tors.

4. All roadway construction and upgrading projects, or activi-
ties requiring a DOT Permit for Physical Alteration.

5. Water distribution systems and supply line extensions.

6. Construction or extension of public or privately owned
sanitary landfills.

7. Mineral extraction (to be defined by area).

8. Processing, transfer, or storage of hazardous materials as

defined by DEM.

9. Electrical generating facilities of more than 10 megawatts
capacity.

10. All residential and commercial in-ground petroleum storage
tanks; all petroleum processing and transfer facilities of
more than 2,400 barrels capacity.

11. Proposed stormwater and/or drainage projects.

B. Any participating agency (Section 220.5) may request a cooperative
review of any proposal within the Narrow River watershed that poses
substantive environmental issues.

220.5 Agencies Participating in the Cooperative Permit Review

A. The following agencies of local, state, and federal government
shall be notified by the Permit Coordinator of all proposals listed in
220.4 above:

1. The DEM Office of Environmental Coordination, which in turn
will notify applicable departments within this agency.

2. The planning board, zoning board of review, conservation
commission, town manager, town planner, and building inspec-
tor of the municipality within which the alteration is pro-
posed.

3. The Department of Administration, Division of Planning.

4. The Historic Preservation Commission.

5. Soil Conservation Service.

6. The Department of Transportation

7. The Coastal Resources Management Council

B. Agencies (or divisions or boards) from whom a permit is necessary
will attend pre-application conferences. The participation of all
interested agencies will be encouraged.

220.6 The Action Committee

A. The Chair of the CRMC Subcommittee shall chair the Action Commit-
tee, which has primary responsibility for acting upon the nonregula-

tory initiatives contained in this Plan.

B. Membership of the Action Committee is as follows:

- All members of the CRMC Small Estuaries Subcommittee

- 5 members from each municipality appointed by their respective
Town Councils; the towns are encouraged to appoint representa-
tives from the Planning Board, Town Council, Conservation
Commission, and the general public.

- A representative of the Department of Environmental Manage-
ment.

- A representative of the Division of Planning.

- A representative of the Historical Preservation Commission.

C. The Action Committee shall support the CRMC and the Small
Estuaries Subcommittee toward its goal of restoring the Narrow River
to SA quality and shall identify its work priorities for each year.
Candidate priorities for the first year are as follows:

1. To design, in cooperation with the DEM, an effective program
to implement the recommendations of the ISDS Task Force on
the maintenance of on-site sewage disposal (ISDS) and upgrad-
ing of substandard and failing ISDS in the region.

2. To develop a cooperative program involving all three towns
for the retrofitting and upgrading of direct discharges of
stormwater runoff.

3. To design and implement a public education program on the
initiatives that individual homeowners can take toward main-
taining and protecting water quality in the region. The
primary focus of the program will be ISDS maintenance and
fertilizer applications. Educational programs shall be
carried out at the community level.

4. To develop strategies for the preservation of remaining open
space and measures that will reduce the cumulative environ-
mental impact of further small lot residential development
in the region.

5. To work toward increasing cooperation and coordination among
the involved local municipalities in matters of mutual con-
cern within the Narrow River watershed.

Chapter Three.
The Watershed
Environment and
Impacts to
Water Quality

INW

Vol,

PRO

310. FINDINGS OF FACT

310.1 Introduction

A. There have been many reports and studies released over the years
relating water quality to the influence of human activity surrounding
the Narrow River. Most of these studies suggest that bacterial con-
tamination is a primary pollutant, and can be attributed to the close
proximity of high density older communities to the river. The primary
threat from high bacterial counts are not from the coliforms them-
selves, but from diseases that may be associated with their presence.
As the bacterial count climbs, so does the probabilty that a potential
health hazard exists. This infringes upon the uses and values of the
river as a natural resource.

B. The river basin configuration has many constraints that have the
potential to intensify bacteria levels, principally, relatively steep
slopes which drain into a constricted poorly-flushed river. With the
expected increase in development along the river, the bacterial prob-
lem will not disappear. Instead, other pollutants associated with
high intensity land uses will begin to appear. As an area becomes
more developed, -che percentage of impervious surfaces increases with a
corresponding increase in the amount of surface water runoff. Surface
water runoff is the pathway by which substances such as road tars and
oils, trace metals, sediments and petroleum products enter receiving
waters (Hoffman and Quinn, 1983). Thus, while high bacteria counts
present the most immediate threat to use of the river for shellfishing
and swimming, increased pollutant loadings can alter the habitat
characteristics resulting in long term degradation of ecological, re-
creational, and aesthetic qualities.

310.2 Natural Features Affecting._Water Quality

A. Topography

1. The path the Narrow River follows was carved into the bedrock
many millions of years ago. During the most recent glacial
transgression, 18,000 years ago, glaciers deepened the river
valley, steepening the flanking walls. As they retreated, a thin
veneer of sand and gravel (outwash) was deposited, blanketing the
valley (Figure 3-1). The steepened walls of the watershed,
bounding the river to the east and west, pose one of the more
severe constraints to watershed uses. The western slopes range
in steepness from 20-40% (CRMC, 1986). There are several hills
in the northwest region which drain directly into the upper
reaches, with greater than 15% slopes. Normal development proce-
dures are considered inadequate when slopes greater than 10% are
encountered (SCS, 1981).

CARR
(PAUSACACO)
POND
NARRAGANSETT
SILVER BAY ON-
SPRING LOWER POND
WATERSHED LAKE UPPER POND
DIVIDE BOSTON
NECK
WESTERN RIDGE

FLOODPLAIN
OUTWASH

BEDROCK

Figure 3-1. A perspective view of the topography and surficial
geology of the Narrow River watershed (River
Landscapes, 1976)

2. As one proceeds southward through the watershed, the land
becomes flat and is near sea level. The veneer of sand and
gravel also thins, and the bedrock can be seen outcropping in
various locations (i.e., Gooseberry Island, southwest shore of
the Cove). Because the bedrock is close to the surface and the
soil layer is thin, the depth to water table is usually less than
three feet, posing severe limitations on development activities.

B. Physical Oceanography

1. The Narrow River is not truly a river. It is more accurately
described as a composite of a tidal inlet and backbay, an estu-
ary, a fjord-like pond, and a river. This combination gives the
Narrow River it's unique quality and character, but also hinders
the natural capabilities the river system has for handling stres-
ses such as increased pollutant loadings.

2. The river is shallow (averaging 3-5 feet) except in the
northern two basins where depths plunge to an average of 50 feet
(Map 12). Flow is sluggish throughout most of the Narrow River,
excluding areas under the bridges and in the Narrows where cur-
rents accelerate due to the restricted width of the river. Be-
cause the river is so narrow and poorly flushed, the ability of
the river to cleanse itself of anthropogenic contaminants is
severley reduced. This allows the accumulation of pollutants,
suspended in the water column and absorbed onto bottom sediments,
in excess of what is considered safe not only to the natural
ecosystem, but to human uses of the water as well.

3. Natural freshwater flow measured in two studies (Wright, et
al. 1949; Durbin, et al. 1979) during the spring season, from
Gilbert Stuart Stream averaged 10,017.5 gallons per minute. Base
flow taken by the United States Geological Survey (1961-1963)
averaged 1,443 gallons per minute in the summer. From these few
measurements it is apparent that flow from the headwaters covers
a considerable range and that the base flow (from groundwater) is
small. Consequently, the headwaters are very sensitive to inputs
from melting snows, ground thawing, rainfall and subsequent run-
off, thus, the quality and quantity of runoff is of considerable
concern.

C. Anoxic Basins

1. The two northern basins, Upper Pond and Lower Pond, were
formed at the end of the latest glacial period by melting ice
blocks. The basins are an interesting feature in that they are
so unlike the rest of the Narrow River. The basins are approxi-
mately fifteen times deeper than the lower reaches and the head-
waters region, and because of this great depth, have a separate
and distinct character.

SILVER PAUSACACO UPPER LOWER OCEAN
SPRING POND POND POND
LAKE
0 2 0
2
E
............. ...
............. ...
............
*...........
............
BOTTOM ........... ANOXIC
ZONE
10
SEDS .....
W
BOTTOM
20- SEDS

Figure 3-2. Longitudinal cross-section of the two northern basins and Carr (Pausacaco) Pond showing
the dynamics of thewater regime and stratification feature.

2. The basins are characterized by a stratification feature
induced by the sinking of heavier brackish waters on flood tide,
below the bouyant fresh upper layers as illustrated in Figure 3-2
(Gaines, 1975). Due to the depth and reduction in sunlight, the
temperature of the lower layers may drop by several degrees,
further enhancing stratification. An important consequence of
this stratification of the water is a reduction in the mixing
between layers, with the lower layers becoming very sluggish and
stagnant. Occasionally the bottom waters are renewed with
fresher water during a process known commonly as "overturn".
When ambient conditions are right, the bottom waters are dis-
placed to the surface, releasing accumulated nutrients and gases,
most notably hydrogen sulfide. This sudden flux of nutrients has
been known to cause eutrophic conditions and fish kills (Horton,
1958a). The residence time for the bottom waters of the Upper
Pond has been estimated to be approximately 3 to 5 years (Gaines,
1975).

3. These basins, because of the extremely poor flushing in the
.lower layers, act as huge catch basins for any substances intro-
duced from the headwaters or transported by surface water runoff
or groundwater flow. Further, these substances can be expected
to remain in the basins for long periods of time, increasing the
amount of time the substances interact with the ecosystem. The
natural cyclic turnover of the bottom waters has been known to
produce adverse effects; if the system becomes more highly eutro-
phied or polluted, the effects of a turnover may be considerably
intensified (DEM, 1986).

310.3 Land Use within the Watershed

A. Current Land Use

1. Land use within the watershed has been and continues to be
devoted primarily to residential use. Although the trend in
development has increased steadily over the past 40 years within
the three towns, the most obvious change has been an accelerated
growth rate, most readily observed in the town of Narragansett
(Figure 3-3). The trend in growth in Narragansett exceeds that
of North Kingstown and South Kingstown by a margin greater than
the two towns combined (Howard-Strobel et al, 1986).

2. The development of residential land use, though seemingly be-
nign, has proceeded in a piecemeal fashion, especially within the
lower portion of the watershed and has resulted in a situation
where the highest density communities are located in close prox-
imity to the river. Mapping of the distribution reveals 1/2 to
1/8 acre lots in South Kingstown and Narragansett along the most
narrow reach of the river (Map 2). In North Kingstown, the high

2800 - *TOTAL WATERSHED
ANARRAGANSETT

'7SOUTH KINGSTOWN
2400 - ONORTH KINGSTOWN

2000 -

co
U.1
co

0 1600 -

U.
0
M 1200 -
LLI

z 800 -

400 -

0
1940 f 1960 1980 2000

YEAR

Figure 3-3. The growth rate trend in the Narrow River watershed
from 1944 to 1985.

density development occurs near Siver Spring Lake in the head-
water region. The close proximity of this high density housing
to the river increases the significance of degradational impacts
from human activities (EPA, 1983).

3. Approximately 30% of the land area within the watershed is
developed (Figure 3-4). The percentage of developed land area in
Figure 3-4 refers to lots with existing residences and residen-
tial supporting facilities (schools, churches, etc.), access
roads, and vacant lots within otherwise developed areas (scat-
tered dwelling units in undeveloped areas were assigned one acre
of developed land). Undeveloped lands account for almost seventy
percent of the watershed (Figure 3-4) and refer to open and
wooded land not supporting residences. These lands include rural
roads, large tracts of land amenable to further subdivision, and
'Igrandfathered" lands not amenable to further subdivision. Most
of the undeveloped lands are located in the north-northwest
region. North Kingstown's undeveloped land area in the watershed
is just over 80%, South Kistown has 70%, and 46% is undeveloped
in Narragansett (Figure 3-5 and Map 2). Much of the land is
undeveloped because of constraints imposed by the natural fea-
tures (high water table, steep slopes, wetlands, etc.), or is
devoted to conservation purposes (land dedications, conservation
easements, and lands zoned for open space or conservation).

4. Present engineering technologies and the installation of
public utilities bypass many of the natural constraints. Based
on the exisiting land use and present zoning ordinances for each
town, the potential for an almost fivefold increase in residen-
tial development exists (Table 3-1). This increase presumes most
of the natural constraints are averted (excluding wetlands) and
includes a number of "grandfathered" substandard lots. Because
many of the undeveloped parcels are large, the future uses (i.e.,
conservation, acquisition, or development) are important factors
that affect the river and should be managed for long-term
benefits.

B. Roads and Highways

1. Roads and highways are an important land use when considering
impacts from surface water runoff. These paved areas, as well as
driveways, roofs, etc., considered impervious material by the
Soil Conservation Service (1981), allow almost all precipitation
to run off without percolating into soil substrate. This limits
the natural filtering process provided by soils which act to
reduce contaminants such as road tars and oils, trace metals,
sediments, and petroleum fuels. In excess, these substances are
harmful to the natural estuarine environment (Hoffman and Quinn,
1985).

TOTAL WATERSHED

C 'j. r to

..........
0:1
7.6%

0.5%

DEVELOPED F-1 OPEN WATER
QUNDEVELOPED COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL

0 4
%

oo 4 5 8 *Z02"K':;: 920Xo 15 9 7 *Icr-*:---"

1.3%
SOUTH KINGSTOWN
8 3. 2
NARRAGANSETT

..........

10.9%

5.6% 0.1%
NORTH KINGSTOWN

Figure 3-4. Land use distribution within the Narrow River watershed
(based on data from 1985-86 aerial photos and municipal
tax maps).

TOTAL WATERSHED

5 8%"-
65.2%

?jr. 14.7 %

CONSERVATION SALT MARSH
F-1 PRIVATE OPEN LAND FRESHWATER WETLANDS

%
2

4%
16.2% 2 5. 8 %'

33.3% 2 4.7 0 83%

NARRAGANSETT 7.5% SOUTH KINGSTOWN

NORTH KINGSTOWN

Figure 3-5. Distribution of the open lands within the Narrow River
watershed (based on data from 1985 aerial photos,
National Wetlands Inventory of 1979, and 1985-6 municipal
tax maps).

Table 3-1. Existing and Potential Development

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

Increase
Existing Houses" At Saturation** Factor

----------------------------------------------------------------
North
Kingstown 545 858 1.6

Narragansett 1495 2547 1.7

South
Kingstown 438 2,050 4.7

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

11
"Data calculated from 1985 aerial photos
**Estimates exclude wetlands

2. There are three major highways traversing the watershed,
Routes 1, 1A, and 138 (Figure 3-6). Route 138 runs east-west
through North Kingstown, serving as a major link from mainland
Rhode Island to the island of Conanicut (Jamestown) and the East
Bay region. Routes 1 and 1A run north-south along the two ridges
bounding the Narrow River. There are four east-west connectors
between Routes 1 and 1A, all crossing the Narrow River. In order
to link the two highwavs, these connectors descend into the river
valley, meeting at the four bridges: Sprague, Middlebridge,
Bridgetown, and Gilbert Stuart. Unless proper drainage control
is in place, this smooth sloping conduit facilitates the trans-
port of surface water runoff. This is currently a problem in
portions of the watershed (Collins, 1986).

C. Public Utilities

1. Public sewer lines are a key factor in determining the des-
tiny of certain lands. The installation of sewer lines encour-
ages building and bypasses natural constraints that would other-
wise inhibit development (River Landscapes, 1976; Olsen and Lee,
1984). However, where ISDS appear to be failing at a high rate,
the installation of sewer lines mav be beneficial to the sanitary
conditions of the neighborhood and to the water quality of nearby
receiving waters. In the town of Narragansett, aside from a few
of the northern most neighborhoods, public sewer lines service
the entire area. Neither North Kingstown nor South Kingstown are
presently utilizing public sewer lines within the watershed.

2. Public water lines also play a role similar to that of sewer
lines in determining the fate of certain lands. The addition of
water pumped in from outside the watershed increases the net
amount of freshwater input to the river which can severely alter
the natural dynamics of the estuary. Narragansett is almost
entirely served by public water lines. South Kingstown has

NORTH

138

Gilbert
41 %,J LU Stuart
Bridge
1 0
cc

NORTH KINGSTOWN NARRAGANSETT

SOUTH KINGSTOWN 0
Lacy
(Bridgetown) 0
Bridge 0: 1 CD

UJ
F-

0
cc
Middlebridge
Bridge Sprague
Bridge
0
A@

Cr Pier R

SOUTH

Figure 3-6. Location of major roadways in the watershed.

public water lines servicing the Middlebridge neighborhood, adja-
cent to the central reach of the river. Several water lines feed
into a few neighborhoods of the watershed in North Kingstown.

3. For those areas not serviced by water lines, the potential
for groundwater contamination becomes a major concern. Pollu-
tants that may enter wells include bacterial coliforms, insecti-
cides, fertilizers, road salts, graywater (dishwasher, washing
machine, sink, and shower discharges), and petroleum products.
Of particular concern to well owners living near an estuary or
other salt water body is the threat of contamination from a salt
water intrusion. This is known to occur if an aquifer is over-
pumped, causing excessive drawdown. In the Narrow River water-
shed, continuing development increases the potential for problems
associated with salt water intrusion. Surface water runoff,
carrying many of the same pollutants and posing the same threats
as groundwater, can also enter older, cracked, or improperly
sealed wells.

D. Special Resources

1. Cultural resources are an important attribute of the Narrow
River and include a number of historical and archeological sites
listed, or eligible for listing, in the State Register and the
National Register of Historic Places. Significant historical
resources within the watershed, located on approximately 457
acres, include most notably the Gilbert Stuart Birthplace (a
National Historic Landmark), the Jireh Bull Blockhouse site, the
original Governor Sprague Bridge, the McSparran site, and the
Silas Casey Farm (the oldest working farm in the U.S.). These
sites, many dating to Colonial times, contribute significantly
not only to the historical aspects, but also to the aesthetic
qualities of the watershed.

2. Surveys sponsored by the Rhode Island Historical Preservation
Commission have identified numerous sites and sensitive areas
which contain, or may contain, prehistoric Native American arti-
facts. Most of these are in close proximity to the river, indi-
cating that earlier cultures also utilized the Narrow River's
wealth of natural resources. These sites date back more than
3000 years and contain important data that can contribute to re-
search topics and issues identified for the Rhode Island coastal
zone (RIHPC, 1986).

3. Unfortunately, many of the historical and archaeological
sites have been altered or destroyed. These cultural resources
are the most vital link to earlier life within the Narrow River
and should be recognized as such, not only by those agencies who
govern their use, but also by other involved regulatory bodies,
as well as local residents. These fragile and nonrenewable re-

sources provide a unique and educational quality to the resource
value of the river and thus, deserve consideration for protective
measures. Educational programs, sponsored through concerned
local groups and perhaps more importantly, in the local schools,
can help to stimulate interest and assure long term appreciation
and protection for these fragile resources.

E. Development Trends

1. Growth along the Narrow River has been dramatic in the past
forty years, as can be seen by the greater than fivefold increase
in the number of dwelling units throughout the watershed (Figure
3-3). Narragansett has experienced the bulk of this growth with
a sevenfold increase. Although the other two towns seem moderate
when compared to Narragansett, South Kingstown has doubled its
growth rate and North Kingstown has increased by more than four-
fold (Howard-Strobel, et al, 1986).

2. Zoning is the principal determinant of the type and density
of use of land, usually laid out in districts to insure the
separation of various activities. All three towns within the
watershed have established zoning districts, with residential
uses being the primary zone designation. The densities allowed
vary greatly over the range of the watershed, from one residence
per 10,000 square feet to one per 80,000 square feet (Figure 3-
7). Narragansett generally has the highest densities, both in
zoning and existing land uses. The less developed areas of North
Kingstown and South Kingstown have substantial acreage devoted to
low density (Map 11).

F. Public Access Sites

1. Public access along the river includes several existing
sites. There are three state owned boat launching ramps, two in
the headwaters region near Silver Spring Lake in North Kingstown,
and one on the west side of the river in South Kingstown. Two
popular fishing sites include Lacey Bridge and Middlebridge
Bridge (Figure 3-6). A bridge at the site of the Gilbert Stuart
Birthplace also offers access for fishing and boating, within the
Gilbert Stuart Stream. Two scenic overlook areas within
Narragansett provide access to the river at the Narrows, where
boats may enter the river from Narragansett Bay.

2. There are numerous private access areas throughout the estu-
ary, most located in the constricted middle reach of the river.
These areas are frequented by the public for boat launching and
other recreational uses. Public access points include individual
docks from adjacent river properties, numerous community associa-
tion beaches, and the Mettatuxet Yacht Club on the east shore.
While the docks for the most part serve the individual, the

TOTAL WATERSHED

27.6% 49.6%
RM RL

0.7%
C/1 9.1%
O,CR
13.0%
H

1.2% 9.1 CR
R15

92%
24% R80
FRIO 63%
R40

2% C/I
0.3% U
0.4% FRIOA 12.4% 8% R20
OS/
NARRAGANSETT 16.4% PL 64.3% SOUTH KINGSTOWN
R40 R80
6.9%
R20

NORTH KINGSTOWN

Residential Zones Additional Zones

RIO -10,000 sq ft/du*
RH (High) R10A -10,000 sq ft/du C/I - Commercial/Industrial
R15 -15,000 sq ft/du 0 - Open Space
R20 -20,000 sq ft/du CR - Conservation
UR - Urban Redevelopment
RM (Moderate) R40 -40,000 sq ft/du OS/PL - Open Space/
Planning
RL (Low) R80 -80,000 sq ft/du
15
R
E�R
t, OA

dwelling unit

Figure 3-7. Zoning distribution within the watershed, 1986.

beaches and Yacht Club are owned and used by the local communi-
ties. A small "fee for use" marina is also located adjacent to
Middlebridge Bridge in Narragansett.

3. As growth in the towns surrounding the river proceeds, the
need for new and/or larger facilities will become a more impor-
tant factor. The Coastal Zone Management Act, as amended in
1976, encourages planning for public access along shoreline
areas.

310.4 Water Quality Status

A. Present Classification

1. The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management cur-
rently classifies the Narrow River as follows: from the Narrows
to the landward limit of the saltwater influence at the top of
Upper Pond, Type SA waters; from Gilbert Stuart Stream to
Pausacaco Pond, Type A waters; and from the start of the
Mattatuxett River to Silver Spring Lake and Pendar Pond are Type
B waters @R.I. Statewide Planning, 1979).

2. Type SA waters are defined as suitable for all salt
water uses, including shellfish harvesting for direct human con-
sumption; Type A waters are suitable for water supply and all
other water uses; and Type B waters are suitable for bathing and
other recreational uses. This classification scheme represents
water quality goals and not necessarily the present condition of
the water body.

B. Bacterial Contamination

1. State officials classify an estuary out of compliance for
Type SA waters when bacteria levels fail to meet both parts of
the State of Rhode Island water quality standard as follows:

(a) "total coliforms not to exceed a median MPN
(Most Probable Number) of 70/100 ml and not
more that 10% of the samples shall exceed
an MPN of 330 of a 3-tube decimal dilution."

(b) "fecal coliforms not to exceed a median MPN
of 15/100 ml and not more than 10% of the
samples exceeding 50/100 ml."

2. Water quality trend data collected by the R.I. Department of
Environmental Management (DEM) show that the Narrow River has
consistently exceeded state standards for total coliform counts
since 1959 (Howard-Strobel et al, 1986). A tabulation of the DEM

GILBERT
STUART RD 74%
D 55%
45%

45%

LACEY
BRIDGE D 50%
65%

7 60%

8 40%
MIDDLEBRIDGE% 9 40%
BRIDGE ---
10 16% 15%
;,SPRAGUE 26%
BRIDGE

47%

Figure 3-8a. Percentage of samples, collected by the RI DEM, exceed-
ing state limits for total coliform levels from 1980
to 1985.

GILBERT (D 53%
STUART R

30 %

30%

40%

LACEY
BRIDGE 47%

75%

65%

MIDDLEBRIDGE 60%
BRIDGE 3 46%
I SPRAGUE 35 (,/Offi 35%
BRIDGE 31 %

46%

Figure 3-8b. Percentage of samples, collected by RI DEM, exceeding
state limits for fecal coliform levels from 1980 to
1985.

data shows that of the 121 samples taken from the river over the
past 21 vears, 50 (41%) were out of compliance ( > 70 MPN total
coliforms). Since 1980, 24 out of 48 samples taken, or 50%, were
out of compliance > 70 MPN total coliforms).

3. Figures 3-8a and 3-8b, are graphic representations of the
data collected by DEM since 1980. The pie diagrams along the
length of the river represent the percentage of the total number
of samples for a particular station that was out of compliance
for total (Figure 3-8a) coliforms and fecal (Figure 3-8b) coli-
forms. "Hot spots" of consistently high counts (>50% of samples
exceed state limits) are readily observed from this presentation.
These include Station I (Gilbert Stuart Stream), Station 2 (mid-
channel at Casey's Sill), Station 5 (mid-channel at Lacey
Bridge), Station 6 (mid-channel at Wampum Rd.), Station 7 (near
Mettatuxett Yacht Club) and Station 8 (mid-channel south of
Torrey Rd.).

4. The history of high bacteria levels has been further substan-
tiated by detailed and intensive analysis performed by microbiol-
ogists from the University of Rhode Island. Data collected at
Lacey and Middlebridge bridges in the summer of 1972 exhibited
counts of total coliforms ranging from 73 to 436 MPN/100 ml
(Hanisack, 1972). Figure 3-9 plots the results of a study per-
formed two years later in the summer of 1974 (Respaz and
Hargraves, 1974). The investigators concluded the study with a
recommendation that the river be reclassified as Type SB waters
(Type SB water are suitable for bathing and other recreational
purposes) due to the high levels of bacterial contamination
observed. Sieberth (1983) noted high coliform counts in 1978 and
1979 while doing a study for the Narrow River Preservation Asso-
ciation. The results (Figure 3-10) led to the closing of the
Narrow River to shellfishing in August, 1979. The river was re-
opened the following Spring, 1980. Recently, Hargraves (1986)
obtained samples above and below Middlebridge Bridge after late
July storms and found fecal coliform (mFc) levels of 2799/100ml
and 2863/100ml, respectively.

5. Sources of bacterial contamination that exist within the
watershed include storm drains, failed septic systems, and fecal
material from domestic animals and wildlife. Storm drains were
investigated by R.I. DEM in April, 1980 and June, 1982 (Figure 3-
11). Of the 33 storm drains along the Narrow River, 22 were
selected for sampling. The results are tabulated in Table 3-2.
The significance of storm drains as a source of bacterial coli-
forms is quite obvious, as state standards are exceeded 3 to
3,400 times by total coliforms and up to 3,000 times for fecal
coliform counts.

6. Failing individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) are a well

GILBERT
STUART RD

105

0
-1 104 1 1,2 1 1 1,3
Cf)

5 1 1 5
0 1,2,3,4,55 5 5 2 LACEY
3 BRIDGE
U- 10 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -700/100MI-
i SWIMMING
0 5
2 2,3 3
5 4 5 1 2,4
3 3 3 @L -70/100ml-
F-- 4 4 3 SHELLFISHING
0

6
101 4
z
a 24 2,4 4
0 0 .1 2
6/18 6/20 7/9 7/11 7/30 8/1 8/3 8/20 8/22 9/3

1974

MIDDLEBRIDGE
BRIDGE

,,SPRAGUE
BRIDGE
2

DUNES
CLUB

Figure 3-9. Total coliform levels measured auring the summer months in
1974, along the Narrow River. Numbers plotted in the graph
refer to the station numbers along the river. The two dashed
lines in the graph represent the uppermost level for each
standard: shellfishing and swimming (data from Repasz and
Hargraves, 1974).

Table 3-2. DEM Storm Drain Survey (Total Coliform/Fecal Coliform
ratio in MPN/100 mls).

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Station April 29, 1980 May 21, 1980 June 25, 1982
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1 2,900/640 23,000/2,300

2 9,300/930 240,000/43,000 2,300/ 23

3 --- 15,000/2,300 ---

4 --- 43,000/15,000 ---

5 4,300/43 23,000/9,300 230/ 23

7 --- 150,000/23,000 ---

8 --- --- ---

9 --- 23,000/1,500 ---

10 4,300/290 23,000/9,300 ---

11 23,000/930 43,000/23,000 230/ 23

12 43,000/430 43,000/23,000 23,000/ 23

13 23,000/2,300 43,000/7,500 ---

14 430/43 23,000/4,300 23,000/230

15 4,300/4,300 240,000/21,000 ---

16 930/93 --- ---

17 930/4** --- 23,000/930

18 230/ 3** --- ---

19 15,000/230 75,000/75,000 ---

20 930/4** --- ---

21 2,300/9** 93,000/9,300 ---

22 2,300/230 75,000/4,300 230,000/230,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------
**Only samples that do not exceed fecal standards for Class SA waters.

known source of bacterial coliforms. The average life span of an
ISDS is estimated at 10 to 15 years (Canter and Knox, 1985).
Aside from faulty installation, cracks, or leaks and general
misuse and abuse, which tend to shorten the life, the ultimate
fate of ISDS are failures due to clogging of the soil with or
ganic material (Canter and Knox, 1985). When the soils clog, the
effluent from a system cannot filter through the soil substrate
and may pool at or near the surface. This appears to be a common
occurrence in the watershed as supported by the results of sev-
eral surveys, including R.I. Projects for the Environment (RIPE,
1980) which performed an extensive survey of neighborhoods in
Narragansett and documented numerous failures (Table 3-3 and
Figure 3-12), Collins (1986), on failures in the Mettatuxett
neighborhood, and the Providence Journal (1986) reporting on a
failure from an apartment complex. Consequently, during or after
a rainstorm, the effluent, already near the surface, surges
upward with the water table and flows downslope with minimal
infiltration (Dickerman, 1986). This is the case in the Narrow
River, as can be evidenced by the high per-centage of samples out
of compliance within three days of a rainstorm; over the past 21
years, 82% of samples have exceeded total coliform standards.
This mode of contamination has been found to be a significant
source of bacterial input to nearby waters in other regions as
well (Nixon et al. 1982; Carlile et al. 1977; Sculf et al. 1977).

7. Domestic animals and wildlife as a source of bacterial con-
tamination have not been investigated in the Narrow River water-
shed. The R.I. DEM (1986) suggests that such sources could be
significant. If this is the case, quantification of the relative
contribution of this type of input needs to be documented. Wild-
life biologists have studied the Narrow River and found that
waterfowl use the estuary primarily as a migratory transit stop
in the late fall and winter, and are not permanent residents
(.Enser, 1986). Expected coliform counts should be elevated dur-
ing this time period, however, the seasonal time series of counts
show that winter is a period of relatively depressed coliform
levels (R.I. DEM, 1972). Further, as development in the water-
shed has continued, the numbers and observations of wildlife have
decreased.

C. Nutrient Loading

1. Nutrients in the estuarine environment, specifically nitrogen
and phosphorus, are similar in function to fertilizers used on
land. They promote the growth and development of plants, the
basis of the food chain. When excessive amounts of nutrients
enter the estuary, increased algal growth occurs creating surface
scum on the water and decreasing the amount of oxygen available
to fish and shellfish. This, in turn, increases the hydrogen
sulfide level (toxic to most organisms at high levels), decreases

\j
FOREST LAKES

RIVERDELL

PETTAQUAMSCUTT
LAKE SHORES

EDGE WA TER

PE
TTAOUAMSCUTT
TERRACE

RIO VIS TA

METTATUXETT

ENVINE ESTATES
-DWES T BAY A P T."S

Figure 3-12. Location of neighborhoods surveyed by RIPE, Inc., 1981.

Table 3-3. Summary of RIPE, Inc. Survey, 1980.

Age of Homes %YF5) Age of Septic (yrs) % Homes With No. Homes That Use Chemical Septic System
Neighborhood 0-11 12-20 20-30 0-11 12-10 20-30 A Pump Program and Average Frequency ST ST/L ST/L/D CESS Other

Mettatuxet 25 31 11 31 32 a 51 14 @ 1/8 months 54 11 2

Rio Vista 28 5 -- 38 5 - 42 21 @ 1/5 months 41 4 -

Pettaquamscutt
Terrace 18 12 12 a 12 12 48 14 @ :/11.months 26 7 7 2
Edgewater 16 7 -- :6 7 -- 52 5 @ /4 onths 19 4

Petaquamscutt
Lake Terrace 19 5 21 19 5 21 39 22 @ 1/9 months 4 28 11 1 4

Forest Lakes 31 3 -- 31 3 -- 47 6 @ 1/3 months - 30 4 - -

TOTALS 137 63 44 153 64 41 46 82 @ avg. of 1/7 months 4 198 41 10 6

ST = Septic Tank# L Leachfieldt D Drywellt Cess Cesspool

water clarity, and may change surface sediment texture to a black
organic ooze. This condition is quite often referred to as
eutrophication, meaning well-nourished, and implies the natural
or artificial addition of nutrients to bodies of water and their
effects.

2. The sources, types, and amount of nutrients entering a water
body are heavily influenced by population density and land uses
(EPA, 1983). Land use in the Narrow River watershed is primarily
residential; in residential areas nitrogen inputs originate from
ISDS and lawn and garden fertilizers (Koppelman, 1978; Canter and
Knox, 1978). The increased growth rate and high potential for
failing ISDS in the watershed suggests that the level of nutri-
ents in the estuary may be approaching undesirable levels.

3. The signs of nutrient enrichment have been observed in the
Narrow River as early as 1972. Hargraves (1972) noted increases
in the growth of sea grass (Zostera sp.), sea lettuce (Ulva sp.),
and Nannochloris sp., a microscopic green plant, all related to
increases in nutrient levels. During this study, peak levels
were recorded at 34 ug-at/l (microgram atoms per liter) for
nitrogen as ammonia (NH and 50 ug-at/l for nitrogen as nitrate
3
(NO3). Nitrogen as ammonia is an indicator of sewage contam-
ination.

4. Nutrients enter a water body through groundwater or surface
water runoff. Groundwater was found to be the major pathway for
nutrients in the nearby Salt Ponds region of the southern Rhode
Island coast (Olsen and Lee, 1984) and may be a pathway for this
watershed. A potentially harmful level of nitrate has been
recorded in at least one well in the Tower Hill area (Narrow
River Preservation Association, 1970). Surface water contribu-
tions are more difficult to evaluate. However, Hanisack (1973)
did note high levels of nitrates due to increases in surface
water runoff, as did Hargraves (1972) after measuring high levels
in storm drains after a rain event.

5. The nutrient data described above only covers a very short
time period. More recent information is needed to determine the
overall trends of nutrient loading within the watershed. Surface
water runoff, already identified as a major source of contamina-
tion, and the past history of polluted wells suggest an eminently
undesirable situation for which controls or mitigations post
facto may be useless (NAS, 1969).

D. Soil Erosion

1. Sedimentation resulting from erosion of river banks and sur-
rounding slopes is a major contributor to water quality degrada-
tion. Sediment suspension reduces water clarity and light penet-

ration, ultimately affecting the growth and development of larval
fish, shellfish, and aquatic vegetation, suffocating bottom dwel-
ling organisms, and eventually disrupting the entire food web.

2. The steepness of a slope and the texture of the surficial
soils are key factors in determining the erosion potential of an
area. Parental soil material in the watershed is either glacial
till or outwash (Map 5). Till is consolidated and poorly sorted,
covering the upper flanks of the bounding slopes. Outwash,
unconsolidated and relatively well-sorted, is found in the low
lying areas abutting the river. The erosion potential, as it
relates to slope has been mapped for the watershed (Map 7).
Those areas most seriously constrained are located primarily on
the western side of the river (Figure 3-1) where slopes reach up
to 40% (CRMC, 1986), and in some cases climb precipitously away
from the waters edge. The soil characteristics of surficial
till, combined with the steep slopes, create a potential problem
area requiring adequate safeguards and management.

3. Localized erosion spots occur where the vegetation has been
cut back along the river in areas of low slope. When vegetation
is cleared from areas of severe slopes, the erosion potential, as
well as the rate, volume, and quality of surface water runoff, is
dramatically increased. The use of ISDS is not recommended on
such slopes because of the likelihood of sewage effluent leaching
out of the hillside further downslope or collecting in pools near
downslope communities. As yet, most lands with poor soils and
steep slopes remain undeveloped because of the existence of these
constraints. As building pressures continue, these lands become
increasingly "workable". Due to the magnitude of the severe con-
straints occurring in these areas, and the seriousness of the
potential impacts on water quality involved in their alteration,
considerable care and attention must be maintained as to their
ultimate use.

E. Other Contaminants

1. Other pollutants which threaten water quality include trace
metals, petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides and herbicides, and
various chemicals. Little monitoring has been performed related
to these pollutants. One study noted PAH's (polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons) in the sediments of Lower Pond (Gschuend and Hites,
1981). PAH's are indicative of naturally or anthropogenically
derived byproducts of combustion (i.e., car exhaust, smoke
stacks, and wood burning).

2. Potential sources of pollutants of this nature exist in the
southern portion of the watershed: gas pumps and underground
tanks at Middlebridge and near South Pier Road, an autobody
painting and refinishing shop near South Pier Road, and a staple

manufacturing plant in the northern portion of the watershed on
Shady Lea Pond. These potential pollution hazards should be
investigated as to the composition, quantity and location of any
discharge pipes or storage tanks and drums.

310.5 Buffer Zones

A. Introduction

1. Buffer zones are land areas that are retained in their
natural and undisturbed condition in order to a) protect the
feature of concern from degradational environmental impacts of
upland activity, and b) prevent incompatible development and
alteration of lands with severe constraints. The feature of
concern mav be the edge of a wetland, a steep bluff or bank, the
shoreline edge of an estuary and its tributaries, or a habitat
critical to the survival of a specific wildlife community.
Additionally, the feature of concern may poses a cultural or
aesthetic character that may require protection, i.e., an area of
historical and archeological significance, or a region with ex-
ceptionally high scenic quality.

2. Disturbing forest and open space lands for development pur-
poses has an immediate and direct impact on the functioning of
natural systems. The loss of vegetation and the creation of
impervious surfaces are directly related to increases in the
volume and rate of stormwater runoff. The removal of trees and
their supporting root systems, the grading and filling of home
sites, and the introduction of additional volumes of water
through ISDS facilitates slope destabilization and the subsequent
processes of erosion. Impervious surfaces impede absorption of
rainfall through the soils, which act to recharge the ground-
water, reducing aquifer capacity and limiting the natural flow to
rivers and streams during dry periods. Pollutants and toxic
substances such as road salts are carried from these impervious
surfaces and can be desposited in surface water bodies and
groundwater. Addtionally, the intrusion of human activity and
the alteration of natural habitats can adversely affect exisiting
widlife.

B. Buffer Functions

1. Maintaining undisturbed buffer zones, aids in the mitigation
of human activities by protecting and utilizing natural processes
and elements of the watershed. A natural densely vegetated zone
impedes and slows the rate at which water flows over the land,
allowing percolation into the soils (Karr and Schlosser, 1977).
Buffers have been shown to reduce the volume of runoff in some
instances by 28 percent (Wang and McCuen, 1981). A number of

factors effect the efficiency of volume reduction, primarily:
slope, soils, type and density of vegetation, water table, and
width of the buffer.

2. A vegetated buffer zone can decrease the sediment load*car-
ried bv surface water runoff. Initially, the vegetative cover
above ground absorbs the energy of falling rain, preventing the
dislodging of sediments from the ground (Palfrey and Bradley,
1981). Secondly, slowing the rate of runoff and allowing the
percolation of runoff through the soils enables rudimentary fil-
tering to take place. Trees are particularly helpful, as their
roots help to penetrate the ground and aerate the soils (Palfrey
and Bradley, 1981). The reduction in the rate of flow also
allows heavier sediment particles to settle out, decreasing the
amount of sediments entering the waterway. Maryland's Coastal
Zone Management Program has determined that the use of buffers
may decrease sediment transport loads by 90 percent (Wong and
McCuen, 1981). The efficiency of the buffer is contingent on the
slopes, soils, type and density of vegetation, water table and
width of the buffer. However, slopes which exceed 10 percent may
not allow for any significant detention of runoff or sediment
removal, despite a heavily vegetated buffer zone (Rodgers et al.
1976).

3. Vegetated buffer zones can also aid in the removal of nutri-
ents such as phosphorous and nitrogen from surface water flow. A
portion of the nutrients are absorbed onto sediment particles and
removed from runoff by filtration through the soils (Karr and
Schlosser, 1977; Palfrey and Bradley, 1981). Unfortunately, a
much larger proportion of the nutrients are carried in solution
and are not easilv removed. Findings on the efficiency of re-
moval of soluable nutrients by vegetative buffers vary from 4% to
80% depending on vegetation, soil type, volume of runoff, concen-
tration of nutrients, and slope (Karr and Schlosser, 1977).

4. An undisturbed vegetated buffer zone allows for habitation by
a diverse wildlife population. Without a buffer, encroachment by
humans on the habitat of faculitative species (those which re-
quire a specific habitat) forces the population to abandon the
site. This has already been experienced in the Narrow River
watershed with the loss of the Least Tern (see Chapter IV). Loss
of any one population can have a dramatic effect on species that
may have been dependent on the lost group, either as a food
source or for population control.

5. The presence of a buffer around the various habitats of the
watershed permits the natural migration of species that are
opportunistic. For example, deer and blue heron utilize the
uplands along the Narrow River for nesting, and migrate to the
wetlands for feeding (Golet, 1986). The loss of upland consumers

can disturb the natural balance of the wetlands, in turn, upset-
ting the balance of the entire ecosystem. When rare or endan-
gered species are present, a buffer can contribute to their con-
tinued existence by reducing the potential of human intervention
and contact. Rare and endangered species are fragile and can be
easily lost due to activities such as inadvertent collection of
plant species, or establishment of footpaths through nesting
grounds (Clark, 1977).

C. Buffer Zones and the Narrow River

1. Within the Narrow River watershed, establishment of a buffer
zone would help protect lands considered environmentally sensi-
tive, as well as furthering the potential for restoring water
quality. As development activity encroaches upon the river, the
potential for adverse impacts to the Narrow River increases. The
soil characteristics adjacent to the river pose severe con-
straints to development (SCS, 1981). These constraints are de-
fined as "indicating one or more soil properties or site fea-
tures that are so unfavorable or difficult to overcome that a
major increase in construction effort, special design, or inten-
sive maintenance is required". For example, the salt marshes of
the southern Cove are bounded by soils having a very slow infil-
tration rate, permanent high water table, and consequently a high
surface runoff potential. These factors, in close proximity to
the high quality wildlife habitat and shellfish grounds of the
Cove, require that certain uses such as ISDS and impervious
surfaces be restricted from those areas.

2. Land on the west side of the river is dominated by steep
slopes, up to 40%, which descend to the rivers edge. Clearing of
vegetation and grading of the slope can increase surface water
runoff considerably and initiate erosive processes such as debris
slumps, slides, and flows (Sidle, et al., 1985). The combination
of these slopes and the high infiltration rate of the soils
raises the concern that ISDS effluent would quickly find its way
into the poorly flushed, sensitive areas of the estuary. Fur-
ther, the accumulation of excess water due to septic leachfields
and intense storm events can also saturate and weaken the soils,
causing eventual mass movements (Sidle, et al., 1985). Another
result of upland alterations has been observed along the Narrow
River on the eastern flanks where slopes average 15 percent.
ftere, residential development has increased the amount of water
available for overland transport and percolation through to
groundwater reserves. During wet periods, pools of water collect
near the homes at the base of the slope (Lee, 1986).

3. Underlying the upper reaches, extending from Upper Pond to
Silver Spring Lake and Pendar Pond, is a vital groundwater aqui-
fer and recharge zone (Figure 3-13). These are essential for the

GROUNDWATER

RECHARGE AREA

GROUNDWATER\
AQUIFER

138 ......

N. KINGSTOWN

Figure 3-13. Location of aquifer and groundwater recharge zone.

continued availability of water for public and private use.
Pollutants that may enter these upper reaches can leach into the
groundwater aquifer, contaminating the water supply. Likewise,
contaminants from the aquifer can leach into the upper water
bodies and eventually be transported down the estuary Wilson,
1977). Increasing the percentage of impervious surfaces which
overlie the aquifer recharge zone can also reduce the potential
for a continuous water supply in the future.

310.6 Summarv

A. The Narrow River has a serious and persistent bacterial contamina-
tion problem. This has resulted from a relatively simple and predic-
table interaction between the natural features of the watershed and
past and present land use distributions. High and medium density
residential communities (1/8 to I acre) abut the river on both sides
of the most narrow reach. These residential communities dispose of
their waste by utilizing individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS).
Not only are ISDS not recommended for such high densities, but neglect
has led to numerous failures resulting in soils clogged with organic
matter. When this happens, the untreated sewage waste is unable to
filter or percolate through the soils and pools near the surface.
During rain events, the proximity to the surface facilitates rapid
transport downslope to the river. Once in the river, the waste accu-
mulates due to poor flushing and eventually exceeds accepted levels,
thus degrading water quality and creating a potential health hazard.

B. A decline in water quality invokes serious questions as to the
perceived present and future use of the estuary by surrounding commun-
ities. Development is continuing in close proximity to the river as
ever increasing numbers of homeowners desire the Narrow River's pre-
mier attractions - aesthetic quality and recreational uses. Concur-
rent with development is the potential for more pollutants to reach
undesirable levels. The unique combination of natural features which
give the Narrow River it's high aesthetic quality and unique resource
value, imposes significant constraints on the continued uses of the
watershed.

C. Buffer zones provide an undisturbed zone around critical areas and
serve many functions which help to mitigate the impacts from upland
human activities (i.e., construction, lawn fertilization, etc.). Spe-
cific functions include slowing the rate of runoff, acting as a filter
to improve the quality of surface water runoff, preserving the aesthe-
tic value of the watershed, reducing adverse effects of human en-
croachment on wildlife and critical habitats, and protecting areas
that are unsuitable for development purposes.

320. MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS AND INITIATIVES

Based on Section 310, Findings of Fact, and the primary objective
of restoring the Narrow River water quality to the DEM SA classi-
fication standard, the following regulations and initiatives are
deemed necessary.

320.1 Land Classification for Watershed Protection

A. Self-sustaining Lands

1. Definition. These lands are undeveloped or developed at a
densitv of not more than I residential unit per 2 acres, or have
been developed with sufficient consideration and management
of environmental impacts. The geographic location of these areas
is such that minimal impacts may be expected to the estuary if
proper development safeguards are employed.

2. Management Policies and Regulations.

(a) In order to be in conformance with this plan, the divi-
sion of a lot, tract, or parcel of land into two or more
lots, tracts, parcels or other divisions of land for sale,
lease, conveyance, or for development, simultaneously or at
separate times, shall not exceed a density of 1 residential
unit per 2 acres.

(b) Cluster development is recommended as a means to pre-
serve open space and aesthetic qualities, and to reduce the
cost and environmental impacts of development. For CRMC
purposes the number of units in a cluster shall be calcu-
lated on the basis of land suitable for development within
the project boundaries in accordance with all DEM regula-
tions and local ordinances. This determination excludes
lands with severe limitations to development including, but
not limited to, coastal and freshwater wetlands, unsuitable
soils, lands included within setbacks and buffers from
lakes, streambeds, and wetlands, and lands to be used for
streets and roads. The overall density of the project shall
not exceed the density allowable by the primary zoning
district, as modified in Section (a) above.

(d) Because these lands are served by onsite sewage dis-
posal systems, a contributing source of bacterial contamina-
tion to the Narrow River (Section 310), regular maintenance
and/or the upgrading of ISDS are a high priority (see Section
320.3).

00,

01"

NORTH KINGSTOWN
'NARRAGANSETT

SOUTH KINGSTOWN I

Figure 3-14. Key location map to land use classification maps.

NORTH KINGSTOWN

CRITICAL CONCERN

.........
DEVELOPED BEYOND
... ... .... ... CARRYING CAPACITY
... . . . SELF-SUSTAINING

!--!V 0 800,
VQI_ ...... ...

...... .......................
.....................
...........

............... .
..... ......

........ ..... .........
...... ........ .... .... : .......
.............. ....... ...........
................
........... .... .......
............... ..... :::-, *:::::::::::
... .......
..............

......... ..
..........
.... pomo I ...............
.. ..........
.............
... .. ..................
..... .............

..........
...........

a uF
*1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 3-15. Land use classification for North Kingstown, Map A.

NORTH KINGSTOWN
CRITICAL CONCERN

-SUSTAINING
EISELF

.........................

.... . . . ... ... .. .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . .
..... . Jigs,
.......... ......
. ............
Ul . . . . . . . .
*.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
00 . . . . .. . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . ..
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. . . . . . . . .
ma,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .......... .............
.. . ....... ... .

... .............
...........
... ... ..... .. ....
......... .....

.... ............

..........
... .........
..........

ul ..........

0 800' 0 .......

Figure 3-16. Land use classification for North Kingstown, Map B.

SOUTH KINGSTOWN

.. .... .....

.............. .
CRITICAL CONCERN

DEVELOPED BEYOND
CARRYING CAPACITY

.f;r,
0 800,

Figure 3-17. Land use classification for Soutb Kingstow, Map G.

SOUTH KINGSTOWN

CRITICAL CONCERN .... .. .

DEVELOPED BEYOND
4
CARRYING CAPACITY

SELF SUSTAINING
Aj-
..........

0 800,

Figure 3-18. Land use classification for South Kingstown, Map D.

NARRAGANSETT

R_
@E:R
L

,Z,@'.'."PETTAQUAMSCUTT
`@LAKE
SHORE. ROAD-

ATER R A

MDEVELOPED BEYOND
CARRYING CAPACITY
-ROAD
771
SELF-SUSTAINING

0
;14

.............. :*.*.'-.'.-.'..%@
."Z., Z5
0 800'

"I... A
...........
.. ............ **

-a. 01,

'OLD P-

10,

Figure 3-19. Land use classification for Narragansett, Map E.

!
ETT Ux
TT
NARRAGANSETT
... ......

@'.' . . ............

Av a

. . . . .. . . . . . X.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
0

.............. ......

01
80
0
.... ..... ...

ROA
14,
@n

....... CRITICAL CONCERN
. ..... .... .
DEVELOPED BEYOND
5 0'
Z'
U-0 CARRYING CAPACITY

......... .......

Fioure 3-20. Land use classification for Narragansett, Map F.

NARRAGANSETT

A R) "ww'
'i'-- WEST

. . . . . . . . . .
6. : . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.... ...... .................
. .. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .

... .. .....
....... ... .......
..........
..........
CRITICAL CONCERN

..... ...... DEVELPE
D BEYOND
...... ...... CARRYING CAPACITY
... ...... ..... . .......
.. ................... ....
SELF
-SUSTAINING

..........

.... ..... . . 0 800,

.... ......

Figure 3-21. Land use classification for Narragansett, Map G.

(e) Where lands in this category abut a perrenial stream
(commonly noted as blue line streams on U.S.G.S topographic
maps) flowing into, or a tributary of, the Narrow River, a
minimum 100 foot buffer of undisturbed vegetation shall be
maintained. The use of such streams or tributaries as
stormwater conveyances, or as receiving waters of direct
discharges of runoff is prohibited.

B. Lands of Critical Concern

1. Definition. These lands are undeveloped or developed at a
densitv of not more than I residential unit per 2 acres and a)
are characterized by natural features and properties that pose
severe constraints for development, and b) are located relative
to the Narrow River such that insensitive development in these
areas possess the greatest threat to the water quality and via-
bility of the estuary.

2. Management Policies and Regulations

(a) Policies and regulations (a) through (e) above apply.

M In those areas within this classification, there are
certain activities and alterations inland of shoreline fea-
tures and their contiguous areas which may require a CRMC
assent. These are activities and alterations having a rea-
sonable probability of conflicting with the goals of this
Plan, and having the potential to damage the environment of
the Narrow River. These activities shall be reviewed by the
CRMC for their consistencv with the requirements and poli-
cies of this Plan and include the following: I

0 Alterations to coastal cliffs, bluffs, and banks

ii) Filling, removing, and grading

iii) Residential, commercial, industrial and public
recreational structures

iv) Sewage treatment and disposal

V) Public roadways, bridges, parking lots

(g) These areas are priorities for additional measures to
minimize environmental impacts from development through
acquisition, conservation easements, tax relief, and aquifer
protection ordinances.

(h) A buffer area of undisturbed vegetation shall be pro-
vided in these areas. The buffer area shall have a minimum

width of 200 feet, measured from the most inland edge of the
coastal feature of concern, or contiguous wetland. A mecha-
nism for ensuring maintenance of the buffer shall be re-
quired as a condition of the CRMC assent.

(i) New individu@:- or community docks are prohibited.

3. The definition and regulations pertaining to areas of critical
concern apply to those properties platted after the adoption date
of this plan. Alterations, to coastal features or within 200 feet
of a coastal feature on properties platted prior to the adoption of
this plan will, where possible, conform to the regulations of this
section.

In cases where, due to the size or configuration of a lot that
was platted prior to the adoption of this plan it is not possible
to provide a 200 foot buffer, then the determination of the
boundaries of a buffer zone must balance the property owner's
rights to enjoy their property with Council's responsibility to
preserve, and where possible, restore ecological systems.
Recommended Buffer Zone shall be established according to the
environmental values and sensitivities of the site as assessed by
-the Council's staff engineer and biologist.

C. Lands Developed Beyond Carrying Capacity

1. Definition. These lands are developed or zoned at densities
less than 2 acres, frequently at one residential unit per 1/2 to
1/8 acre or less. These densities have exceeded the natural
ability of the soils and other environmental factors to attenuate
the effects of development. The consequences of such intense
development have been a major source of contamination to the
estuary. Most of the ISDS in these areas predate state-enforced
siting and design standards, and are approaching, or have ex-
ceeded, their life span.

2. Management Policies and Regulations

(a) Densely developed lands within the towns of
Narragansett and South Kingstown are in close proximity to
existing sewer lines; in these areas extension of sewer
service is a priority. The following locations are priori-
tized for sewer service based on community density levels,
frequency of reported ISDS failures, and high bacterial
coliform levels in the adjacent estuarine waters.

1. Envine Estates (Mettatuxett)
2. Middlebridge
3. Rio Vista Neighborhood
4. Pettaquamscutt Terrace
5. Pettaquamscutt Lake Shores'
6. Forest Lakes*

These neighborhoods are located north of Bridgetown
Road where municipal sewer lines are not as readily
available. This, and other factors, make ISDS main-
tenance and restoration a more appropriate approach to
addressing existing problems in these areas, prior to
extension of sewer lines (see Section 320.3).

(b) The sewage waste is directed to the Westmoreland Treat-
ment Facility in Narragansett which is nearing capacity. If
the facility's capacity is reached before the above priori-
tized neighborhoods are sewered, the goal of restoring water
quality in the near future is seriously curtailed and raises
questions as to the feasibilty of acheiving this goal.
Because of the immeninency of further water quality degrada-
tion, the above priorities must be addressed before any
private or municipal sewer extensions or installations will
be permitted in areas that do not, as yet, pose a water
quality threat, i.e., self-sustaining lands and undeveloped
lands in areas of critical concern.

(c) Vegetative buffer zones along the perimeter of the
Narrow River and contigous wetlands shall be negotiated by
the CRMC in accordance with Section 150 of the CRMP. The
reestablishment and restoration of wetlands shall be a pri-
ority.

(d) Undeveloped areas previously platted at extremely high
densities are priority areas for amendments to zoning ordi-
nances and other actions to provide for reduced density,
i.e., a minimum 2 acre lot size.

(e) Lots of less than 2 acres which are in contiguous
ownership should be combined before application for develop-
ment permits are considered.

320.2 Watershed Controls for Surface Water Runoff

A. Stormwater Management

1. Definition. Stormwater Management refers to a) for quantita-
tive control, a system of vegetative and structural measures that
control the increased volume and rate of surface runoff caused by
man-made changes to the land, and b) for qualitative control, a
system of vegetative, structural, and other measures that reduce
or eliminate pollutants that might otherwise be carried off by
surface runoff.

2. Management Policies and Regulations

(a) It shall be the policy of the CRMC to require proper
stormwater management within the Narrow River watershed for
the following activities:

i) New residential developments of six units or more;

ii) Facilities or activities requiring or creating
20,000 square feet or more of total impermeable
surface area, or resulting in twenty percent or
more (20 %) of the project area being rendered
impervious;

iii) All roadway construction and upgrading projects;

iv) Any activitv within the watershed involving any
maintenance, alteration, use or improvement to an
existing stormwater management structure changing
or affecting the quality, rate, volume, or loca-
tion of surface water discharge;

(b) Applicants shall follows the guidelines set forth in
Section 320.2B below and submit the following information to
the CRMC for review in the early stages of planning such
facilities or activities. Certain informational requirements
may not be applicable to the proposed activity, in such a
case the relevant sections may be waived.

B. Guidelines for the Stormwater Management Plan

1. It is the responsibility of the applicant to submit a Storm-
water Management Plan containing sufficient information for the
CRMC to evaluate the environmental characteristics of the af-
fected areas, the potential and predict6d impacts of the proposed
activity on the Narrow River and its tributaries, and the effec-
tiveness and acceptability of those measures proposed by the
applicant for reducing adverse impacts. The Stormwater Manage-
ment Plan shall contain maps, charts, graphs, tables, photo-
graphs, narrative descriptions and explanations, and citations to
supporting references@ as appropriate to communicate the informa-
tion required by this section.

2. The existing environmental and hydrologic conditions of the
site and of receiving waters and wetlands shall be described in
detail, including the following:

(a) The direction, flow rate, and volume of surface runoff
under existing conditions and to the extent practicable,
predevelopment conditions; the required information shall be
based on the I year, 10 year, and 100 year storms for the 24
hour duration, and the duration which coincides with the
time of concentration of the watershed;

(b) The location of areas of the site where stormwater
collects or percolates into the ground;

(c) A description of all surface watercourses, waterbodies,
and wetlands on or entering a site, or adjacent to the site,
or into which stormwater flows. Information regarding their
water quality and the current water quality classification
given them by the Department of Environmental Management
shall be included;

(d) Depth to seasonal groundwater levels, approximate di-
rection and rate of flow, seasonal fluctuations;

(e) Location of 100 year flood zones;

(f) Principal vegetation types;

(g) Topography described in full contour detail, at 2 foot
intervals, with areas of steep slopes (over 10%) high-
lighted;

(h) Soils, with an accompanying analysis of the best use
potential of the soils and the hydrologic group classifica-
tion; the soils map and use potentials analysis prepared by
the US Soil Conservation Service should be used as the basis
for this analysis.

3. Proposed alterations of the site shall be described in de-
tail, including:

(a) Changes in topography, described in full contour de-
tails at 2 foot intervals;

(b) Areas where vegetation will be cleared or otherwise
altered;

(d) The proposed development layout including:

i) The site arrangement, including the location of
structures, roadways, parking areas, sewage disposal
facilities, and undisturbed lands.

ii) All drainage systems to be provided, including the
location and desgn of roadway and individual lot sub-
drains; full drainage calculations shall be included,
with I or 2 year, 10 year, and 100 year storms used as
the basis of design.

4. Predicted impacts of the proposed development on existing
conditions shall be described in detail, including:

(a) Changes in water quality;

(b) Changes in groundwater levels;

(d) Adverse impacts on wetlands;

(e) Impacts on vegetation;

5. All components of the drainage system and any measures for
the detention, retention, or infiltration of water, or for the
protection of water quality shall be described in detail, in-
cluding:

(a) The channel, direction, volume, and rate of the flow
(CFS), and quality of stormwater that will be conveyed from
the site, with a comparison to existing conditions, and to
the extent practicable, predevelopment conditions;

(b) Detention and retention areas and devices, including:

i) Plans for the discharge of contained waters; in-
cluding the time to draw down from full condition,
description of outlet structures;

ii) Maintenance plans; including maintenance schedule,
an outline of responsible parties and all pertinent
agreements to be executed to insure proper maintenance;

iii) An evaluation of the pollutant removal efficiency
of such devices under the existing conditions;

(c) Areas of the site to be used or reserved for percolation
including the depth to seasonal groundwater table, and pre-
diction of the impact on groundwater quality;

(d) Areas to be utilized in overland flow, the hydrologic
soil type of such areas, vegetation present, and the soil
susceptibility to erosion;

(e) Any other information which the developer or the CRMC
believes is reasonably necessary for an evaluation of the
development.

C. Performance Standards

Stormwater Management Plans submitted must demonstrate that the
proposed development or activity has been planned and designed and
will be constructed and maintained to meet each of the following
standards:

1. Ensure that after development, runoff from the site or
activity approximates the rate of flow, volume, and timing
of runoff that would have occurred following the same rain-
fall conditions under existing conditions and, to the extent
practicable, pre-development conditions;

2. Maintain the natural hydrodynamic characteristics of the
watershed;

3. Protect or improve the quality of surface and ground
waters;

4. Protect groundwater levels;

5. Protect the beneficial functioning of wetlands as areas
for the natural storage of flood waters, the chemical
reduction and assimilation of pollutants, and wildlife and
fisheries habitat;

6. Prevent increased flooding and damage that results from
improper location, construction, and design of structures;

7. Prevent or reverse salt water intrusion;

8. Protect the natural fluctuating levels of salinity in
estuarine areas;

9. Minimize alteration to flora and fauna and adverse
impacts to fish and wildlife habitat;

10. Otherwise further the objectives of the SAMP.

D. Design Standards

To ensure attainment of the objectives of Section 320.2 and that
performance standards will be met, the design, construction and main-
tenance of stormwater svstems will be consistent with the following
standards:

1. Discharging runoff directly into the Narrow River and
its tributaries, or enlarging the volume, rate, or further
degrading the quality of existing discharges is prohibited.
Instead, runoff shall be routed through vegetated swales and
other structural and nonstructural systems designed to in-
crease time of concentration, decrease velocity, increase
infiltration, allow suspended solids to settle, and remove
pollutants; such systems will utilize overland flow and
reinfiltration as priority techniques for the treatment of
runoff;

Retention and detention ponds, and methods of overland
flow may be used to retain, detain, and treat the increased
and accelerated runoff which the development generates;

3. Water shall be released from detention ponds at a rate

and in a manner approximating the natural flow which would
have occurred before development, incorporating the follow-
ing standards;

(a) Peakflow discharges from 1 year, 2 year, and 100
year storms will not be increased by the development or
activity;

(b) Ponds shall not be placed where their use poses
concerns of groundwater contamination through the re-
charging of pollutants from surface runoff;

(c) Detention ponds shall have a minimum containment
time of 36 hours, a minimum sump depth of 3 feet, and
whenever possible utilize permeable sides and/or bot-
toms so as to minimize outflow;

(d) Outflow from structural devices shall have flow
proceed to natural vegetated areas or vegetated swales
when discharging in proximity to wAtercourses, wet-
lands, and the estuary; such areas utilized for sheet
flow should have hydrologic and vegetative characteris-
tics adequate to insure that stormwater reaching the
watercourse, wetland, or estuary does so in a manner
approximating predevelopment or existing conditions.

4. Natural watercourses shall not be dredged, cleared of
vegetation, deepened, widened, straightened, stabilized, or
otherwise altered. Water shall be retained or detained
before it enters any natural watercourse in order to pre-
serve the natural hydrodynamics of the watercourse and to
prevent siltation or other pollution;

5. Intermittent watercourses such as swales, should be
vegetated;

6. The first 1 inch of runoff from impervious surfaces,
such as rooftops and paved surfaces shall be treated and
reinfiltrated on the site of the development;

7. Runoff from parking lots and roads shall be treated to
remove oil and sediment;

8. The use of drainage facilities and vegetated buffer zones
as open space and conservation areas shall be encouraged.

E. Information Sources

The basic design criteria, methodologies, and construction speci-
fications, shall be those of the United States Soil Conservation

Service, generally found in the most current edition of the following
publications or subsequent revisions:

1. "Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds:" Technical Release
No. 55, January 1975.

2. "Soil Conservation Service Engineering Field Manual",
latest edition, as applicable.

3. "Soil Conservation Service Standard and Specification for
Ponds", Specification No. 378, Julv 1981.

4. "Rhode Island Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook",
1980, or its most recent addition.

5. "Methodology for Analysis of Detention Basis for Control
of Urban Runoff Quality", EPA Publication, September, 1986.

F. Remedial Stormwater Management Activities

1. Definition. Remedial stormwater management activities are
those actions taken to address a situation where no stormwater
management, as defined in Section 320.2A, presently exists and
there is a clear threat to water quality which the proposed
activitv addresses.

2. In such situations, a Special Exception may be granted, under
the requirements of Section 130 of the CRMP, to a new or expanded
discharge of stormwater runoff. In considering such an action
the CRMC shall give strict consideration to paragraphs A(2) and
A(3), of that Section; that all reasonable steps shall be taken
to minimize the environmental impacts and or/use conflicts, and
that there is no reasonable alternative means of, or location for
serving the compelling public purpose cited.

G. Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan

The CRMC, the DEM, and the towns should undertake a cooperative
program to upgrade existing direct discharges which do not employ, or
possess substandard, stormwater management techniques and are dis-
charging into the Narrow River and its tributaries and wetlands. This
effort should integrate standards and design techniques such as those
presently being evaluated for the Scituate Resevoir by the DEM. Addi-
tionally, there is a need to conduct further study on the impacts and
mitigation of stormwater inputs to the Narrow River. Investigations
could include the following:

1. Analysis of stormwater composition beyond that of just bac-
teria levels;

2. Quantification of the total volume of runoff which enters the
river;

3. Development of technical and mitigative techniques for parti-
cular environmental characteristics;

4. Response of groundwater resources to stormwater inputs;

5. Experimental plantings of various hydrophilic/deep rooted
vegetation.

320.3 Watershed Controls for Septic Svstem Management

A. Regional Wastewater Management Plan

1. The concurrent pressures from existing ISDS failure concen-
trations and increasing residential development have reached a
critical point within the Narrow River watershed. There exists a
need within the watershed, particularly in South Kingstown and
Narragansett, to formulate a comprehensive wastewater management
plan which will schedule and outline the actions necessary to
address the wastewater treatment and disposal problems within the
watershed.

2. The plan should be undertaken on a cooperative basis by the
municipalities, the DEM, the Department of Health, and the CRMC
and should address, at a minimum, the following items:

(a) the future reserve and expansion capacity of South
Kingstown's Westmoreland Treatment Plant;

(b) the identification and scheduling of areas that require
sewer service with priority consideration given to areas
with concentrations of failed ISDS;

(d) the identification and phased replacement of individual
failed units;

(e) the application of the Sewerage and Water Supply
Failure Fund monies towards these programs;

(f) the development of programs to educate local residents
about the use and maintenance of ISDS systems. Coordination
with Save The Bay workshops on this topic may be useful.

B. Extension of sewer lines

1. Until such time that the Comprehensive Wastewater Management
Plan is devised and agreed upon it shall be the policy of the
CRMC that the extension of sewer lines to those areas classified
as Lands Developed Beyond Carrying Capacity will take priority
over the construction or extension of private, municipal, or
industrial sewage facilities or systems, conduits or interceptors
to other areas of the watershed.

2. The extension of sewer lines shall follow the priorities
outlined in Section 320.1 (C).

C. Septic System Maintenance

1. Until such time as the areas prioritized for extension of
sewer lines are serviced by these lines, and in all those areas
not prioritized for sewer service but within lands classified as
Lands Developed Beyond Carrying Capacity, the towns should under-
take a program to support regular maintenance of ISDS within the
watershed. The septic maintenance program should include, as a
minimum, the following:

(a) ISDS should be pumped every 3 years as recommended by the
Rhode Island Division of Planning (1979);

(b) Funds for a maintenance program should be investigated and
may be appropriated through:

i) The Sewerage and Water Supply Failure Fund
ii) Municipal bond issues;

(c) Septic tank pumpers should be responsible for reporting
to the office designated by each town those septic
tanks not able to be pumped, or requiring pumping more
than 3 times in one year;

(d) As a incentive to eliminate chronic ISDS problems and to
orotect future homeowners, information pertaining to failed
ISDS or violations of state ISDS regulations should be
recorded on property deeds until such time as they are
corrected.

2. Through the use of regular maintenance, or pumping, the life
span of an ISDS, its effectiveness in treating waste, and protec-
tion for groundwater, can be increased. Homeowners should be
educated on how their wastes are being treated, the importance of
regular pumping, and what preventative measures can be applied to
alleviate future problems. Suggested measures include:

(a) water conservation practices;

(b) discouragement of garbage disposals;

W proper disposal of chemical wastes (paints, thinners,
alcohol, acids, drain cleaners, etc.);

(e) separate drainfield for washing machine discharges;

(f) prohibition of the use of chemical ISDS "rejuvenators";

(g) planning for alternate site in the event of primary
site failure;

(h) resting part of the leachfield system periodically through
design or installation of alternate beds.

320.4 Watershed Controls for Erosion and Sedimentation

A. Definition. Erosion and sediment control refers to the preven-
tion, control, and management of soil loss due to wind and water,
caused by alterations to vegetation and soil surfaces within the
Narrow River watershed.

B. Management Policies and Regulations

It shall be the policy of the CRMC to prevent adverse environ-
mental impacts to the Narrow River watershed due to erosion, soil
loss, and sedimentation, including secondary and cumulative as well as
direct impacts. The following standards and procedures shall be
required in those cases where the GRMC determines that additional
measures are warranted in order to protect the environment of the
Narrow River:

1. An Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan shall be submitted
and shall include the following;

(a) A site plan showing the grades, elevations, and con-
tours of the land prior to disturbance and the proposed
grades, elevations, and contours to be created;

(b) Location and description of existing natural and man-
made features on the property where the work is to be per-
formed, on land of adjacent owners within 100 feet of the
property, or which may be adversely affected by the proposed
operations;

(c) A soil survey or soils engineering report including
data regarding the nature, distribution, and strength of
existing soils; conclusions and recommendations covering the
adequacy of the site to be developed; the soil investigation
and subsequent report should be completed and presented by a
professional engineer registered in the State of Rhode
Island;

(d) Location and description of proposed changes on the
site;

(e) A schedule of the sequence of installation or applica-
tion of planned erosion controls, both temporary and per-
manent, as related to the progress of the project, including
an account of the total soil surface area which will be
disturbed during each stage, and estimated starting and
completion dates; measures for soil erosion and sediment
control must meet or exceed standards and regulations set
forth by the USDA Soil Conservation District. Such stand-
ards may be found in the Rhode Island Erosion and Sediment
Control Handbook (SCS, 1980);

M A slope stabilization and revegetation plan which shall
include a complete description of the existing vegetation,
the vegetation to be removed and the method of disposal, the
vegetation to be planted, and slope stabilization measures
which are to be installed including the environmental ef-
fects of such operations on slope stability, soil erosion,
and water quality.

2. Development shall be accomplished so as to minimize adverse
effects upon the natural or existing topography and soil condi-
tions and to minimize the potential for erosion and shall include
the following:

(a) Development shall be oriented to the site so that cut-
ting and stripping of vegetation and grading are kept to an
absolute minimum. In those areas classified as Lands of
Critical Concern such activities shall be restricted to the
square footage of the buildings, parking areas, stormwater
controls and other essential development related structures,
plus an additional ten percent (10%) area of the lot in
which construction equipment can operate.

(b) Temporary seeding, mulching, or other suitable stabili-
zation methods shall be used to protect exposed areas during
construction and where feasible, natural vegetation shall be
retained and protected. Soil and other materials shall not
be temporarily or permanently stored in locations that would

cause suffocation of tree root systems.

(c) Land shall be developed in increments of workable size
which can be completed during a single construction season.
Erosion and sediment controls shall be coordinated with the
sequence of grading, development, and construction opera-
tions. Control measures shall be put into effect prior to
the commencement of each increment of the process. When
necessary, temporary seeding or mulching shall be used to
protect exposed areas until the next construction season.

320.5 Lands Requiring Special Considerations

A. Definition. There are several areas within the watershed which
require special mitigative measures due to their unique characteris-
tics. The importance of measures to mitigate environmental threats
either to these lands, or from them to the estuary, cannot be over-
looked.

B. Management Policies and Regulations

1. Historical and Archaeological Sites

(a) Those sites identified by the Rhode Island Historical
Preservation Commission as having historical or archaeo-
logical significance shall be priorities for acquisition and
preservation programs such as open space easements and land
dedications.

(b) Where possible, these sites should be incorporated into
the buffer zone by extending the boundary of the buffer
where necessary. The towns are encouraged to make provi-
sions in their respective zoning ordinances for the rezoning
of these significant sites for conservation purposes.

2. Undeveloped Small Parcel Lands

Many tracts of land were platted prior to 1968 and are
composed of small lots, inconsistent with current zoning ordi-
nances. Where several of the3e lots are in contiguous ownership,
and have not received approval for development, replatting at the
lowest allowed density should be considered. This will aid in
reducing cumulative environmental impacts associated with high
density developments.

320.6 Petroleum Tanks and Oil Spills

A. Petroleum Storage Tanks

1. Definition. In-ground petroleum storage tanks include con-
tainers for gasoline, heating oil, diesel fuel, or other petroleum
compounds for commercial, industrial, or household use.

2. Management Policies and Regulations

(a) Burial of new domestic fuel oil storage tanks are
prohibited in the Narrow River watershed.

(b) All persons proposing to replace or repair buried fuel
oil tanks, or install storage tanks for gasoline, petroleum
products, or any other substance defined as hazardous by DEM
shall apply for a CRMC permit. Applicants are required to
demonstrate that the design and construction of the tanks
will have no environmental impact and that the tanks are
amenable to monitoring for potential leakages.

(c) In the event a leakage is discovered, the tank shall be
replaced according to DEM regulations for underground stor-
age of facilities for petroleum products (R.I. DEM, 1984).

B. Oil Spill Contingency

Oil spills shall be treated as outlined in the Rhode Island Oil
Spill Contingency Guide (R.I. DEM, 1980). It is further recommended,
in the event of a nearshore spill that poses a threat to the river,
that efforts should be focused on impeding oil flow into the Narrows
and subsequently into the lower reaches of the estuary. An oil boom
should be placed as close to the seaward mouth of the estuary as
permitted by the currents. If oil should enter the lower reaches,
attempts should be made to deflect the oil away from the sensitive
salt marshes surrounding the cove through the use of strategic boom
deployment. Diversion should be upstream, where fringing marshes are
not as expansive, and where the close confines of the river may faci-
litate clean-up activities.

320.7 Community Participation

A. Community Education

1. Educating the community as to sources of pollution, mech-
anisms by which pollutants enter the Narrow River, and the de-
grading effect on water quality can enlighten and encourage
participation in clean-up activities. Such clean-up activities
may entail individual mitigation efforts, i.e., minimizing chemi-
cal fertilizer applications, cisterns for catch-ing rainwater,
roof gutters, maintaining septic systems, and water conservation
techniques.

2. Various methods for community education may include distribu-
tion of pamphlets, seminars and/or workshops, radio or televison
advertisements, video tapes, and local newspaper columns.

B. Monitoring

A citizen's water quality monitoring program, i.e., "River-
watchers", similar to that initiated by the Salt Ponds SAM Plan (Olsen
and Lee, 1984), "The Pond Watchers", is a necessary initiative in the
Narrow River watershed as it provides a means for supplementing state
efforts. Participation by surrounding communities increases enthu-
siasm and public awareness facilitating the restoration, preservation,
and protection goals of the plan.

320.8 Future Research

The CRMC recognizes that further research is needed to help
protect the river. As funding becomes available, the research needs
listed below are recommended:

A. Initial research programs should be directed toward monitoring
river water quality once implementation of the plan begins. The
monitoring will measure the effectiveness and efficiency of the resto-
rative management strategies. Such research will provide information
as to whether the management techniques shoud be maintained or im-
proved.

B. Development of a quantitative hydrodynamic model of the estuary
should be pursued. Such models enable the prediction of the transport
and fate of a variety of pollutants and allow for the enactment of
"what if" scenarios for different levels of pollutant inputs.

C. Detailed analysis of bottom sediment distribution, composition,
and transport dynamics should also be encouraged. These studies
provide insight as to processes affecting shellfish and other bottom
dwelling organisms. Sediment transport studies are also used in
determining locations of erosion and/or deposition.

D. Groundwater data is scarce in the watershed. Focus should be
placed on determining the status of groundwater in the watershed in
terms of quality and quantity. Flow patterns have not yet been de-
lineated but should be for purposes of determining contaminant trans-
port and pathways.

E. Little is known about the freshwater system in the northern region
of the watershed. Water quality testing should be initiated in
Pausacaco (Carr) Pond, the Mattatuxet River, and in Silver Spring
Lake. Transport studies, hydrodynamical and sedimentological, would

be extremely beneficial.

F. At the present time technical guidelines for storm water manage-
ment do not exist on state and town levels. There is an overwhelming
need for the application of such techniques in the Narrow River water-
shed, among other areas within the state. The CRMC, the DEM, the SCS,
and municipal agencies should undertake a cooperative program to
assess the existing status of stormwater management in other states
and the applicability of such concepts for the development of guide-
lines for Rhode Island.

Chapter Four,
Critical Habitat

Mw'

410. FINDINGS OF FACT

410.1 Introduction

A. A complex series of interrelationships have evolved among the
different habitats that coexist within the Narrow River watershed.
These habitats include the wetlands, the estuarine waters, and the
terrestrial uplands. The interrelations among these three habitats
form the basis for a highly productive and diverse wildlife popula-
tion, establishing the watershed region as a valuable natural re-
source.

B. The greater the productivity, the more viable the ecosytem, hence,
the greater the resource value to the surrounding communities. Speci-
fically, this means unpolluted waters, abundant and diverse fish and
wildlife populations, and a high aesthetic quality. Unfortunately,
these characteristics attract more human development activities, which
can serve to adversely affect the interactions which take place among
and within the different habitats.

410.2 The Wetlands Habitat

A. Description

1. Wetlands interact with both the aquatic and terrestrial
environments, resulting in a habitat of extremely high producti-
vity (Figure 4-1). During tidal ebb and flood, nutrients and
waste material are exchanged between the salt marsh and adjacent
estuarine waters. This constant exchange and renewal of nu-
trients has made the salt marsh the most productive of all wet-
lands (Odum, 1961). The wetlands display features and species
characteristic of both bounding habitats, yet has its own unique
characteristics and species, differentiating it from any other
habitat (Daiber, 1986). In Rhode Island coastal wetlands include
salt marshes and freshwater or brackish wetlands contiguous to
salt marshes (Olsen and Seavey, 1983).

2. The abundance and diversity of vegetation is critical in
maintaining the high productivity associated with the wetlands.
Detrital material (decaying organic matter) derived from the
vegetation forms the basis of ecosystem metabolism in the wetland
environment, and, via tidal flow, supplements and enhances the
productivity of the adjacent estuary. The vegetation also aids
in trapping natural sediment and nutrient loads derived from
runoff over land and from material suspended in the water column.
Thus, the marsh is serving as a rudimentary filter, maintaining
the natural quality of the open water habitat. With rising sea
level, the filtering and accretion of sediments facilitates
growth of the marsh, ensuring continued productivity.

2500-

Salt
Marsh

2000-
Tropical Fresh
Rain Water
Forest Wetland

1500-

1000- NA le dow--
Cold Warm I
ez eciduous emperat
fll:t @ft
Mixed
Forest
Forest
500- ultivate
I Boreal Land Grassland
Desert Forest 11 1 1 11 1 1 1 1

ADAPTED FROM LIETH (1975) AND TEAL AND TEAL (1969)

Figure 4-1. Net primary productivity of selected ecosytems, in grams
ar (From T ier, 198
carbon/ye
+ultivated

V A L U E S H A Z A R D S

Isolated Wetlands

(Permanently high ground water o, flooding and drainage
levels due to discharge and problems for roads and
drainage) buildings due, in some
instances, to widely
o waterfowl feeding and fluctuating surface and
nesting habitat ground water elevations
o habitat for both upland and o serious limitations for
wetland species of wildlife on-site waste disposal
o floodwater retention area o limited structkire bearing
ISO ATED
o sediment and nutrient capacity of soils for roads
WETLANDS retention area and buildings due to high
00 o area of special scenic beauty content-of organic materials

LAKE A GIN WETLANDS Lake Margin Wetlands

o see values for "isolated 0 see hazards for "isolated
I wetlands" above wetlands" above
o removal of sediment and
nutrients from inflowing
waters
0 fish spawning areas

Riverine Wetlands
E. WET
RIVERIN LANDS
.. 1. o see values for "isolated o see hazards for "isolated
wetlands" above wetlands" above
o sediment control, o flood conveyance area subject
stabilization of river banks to deep inundation
-Soft-.40 o flood conveyance area o sometimes erosion areas
611 AN
%10 Estuarine and Coastal Wetlands
ESTUARINE AND o see values for "isolated 0 see hazards for "isolated
0 wetlandg"sabo e wetlands" above
COASTAL WETLANDS fish an hellfish habitat o often severe flood hazard
and spawning areas due to tidal action, riverine
0 nutrient source for marine flooding, storm surges, and
fisheries wave action
o protection from erosion and o sometimes severe erosion
storm surges area in major flood due to
wave action

Figure 4-2. Values and hazards associated with the various wetlands found within the Narrow River
watershed (From Kusler and Harwood, 1977).

3. Other functions of wetlands are summarized by Shisler, et al.
(1975) and include: shoreline stabilization, abatement of storm
surge due to attenuation/frictional effects, storage of flood
waters, reducing hurricane/storm impacts, nursery and spawning
grounds for estuarine and marine species, and resting, nesting,
and feeding sites for waterfowl. In the Narrow River watershed,
and other estuarine-marsh ecosystems, such wetland functions
enhance the value of the resource to the surrounding communities
(Darnell, 1979). Figure 4-2 summarizes several of these values
and associated hazards that arise when natural functions of the
wetlands are ignored.

4. Within the Narrow River watershed 20% of the undeveloped open
lands are defined as wetlands. Of these wetlands, 30% are
classified as salt marsh and 70% as freshwater marshes (Figure 4-
3). Map 4 shows the areal extent of these freswater and salt
marshes. Most of the salt marshes are located in the southern
embayment, Pettaquamscutt Cove. The Cove is almost completely
surrounded by broad expanses of salt marsh with several marsh
islands present in the shallow waters. Smaller salt marsh patch-
es and fringing marshes extend up the river, on both sides, as
far north as Bridgetown Bridge.

5. Freshwater wetlands contiguous to the salt marshes which
bound the Cove, account for almost half of the freshwater sVstems
within the watershed. The remaining freshwater wetlands can be
found along the Mattatuxet River and Gilbert Stuart Stream in the
headwaters region, and in an extensive trellis network of small
streams and wetlands which effectively reach every corner of the
watershed. These wetlands are important because the freshwater
discharged to the system enhances mixing, which is the basis for
high productivity levels.
TOTAL WETLANDS

SALT MARSH

30%
-RESHWATER

70%
1 t@; I
Figure 4-3. Percent compostion of wetlands in the Narrow
River watershed.

B. Vegetation

1. Recent aerial photographs have been used to classify the
salt marshes surrounding the cove as estuarine intertidal
(Kenenski, 1986), characterized by erect, rooted, herbaceous
hydrophytes (USFWS, 1979). Plant species typical of this assem-
blage are listed in Table 4-1. The cordgrasses are a major
source of detritus to the marine food web, and are grazed upon by
many organisms, including marsh snails, amphipods, isopods, leaf
bugs, fiddler crabs, ribbed mussels, and mud snails (Pelligrino
and Carroll, 1974). Cordgrass seeds also serve as food for
waterfowl and other birds, while the rootstalk of the plant is a
major food source for geese and muskrat (Pierce, 1977). Spike
grasses, found in low dense stands, provide nesting sites for
various species of waterfowl and a food source for ducks, small
mammals, and marsh and shore birds (Pierce, 1977).

Table 4-1. Predominant wetlands vegetation of the Narrow River Watershed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common name Scientific name Type Location

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saltmarsh cordgrass Spartina alterniflora sw lower estuary
Saltmeadow grass Spartina patens sw lower estuary
Spike grass Distichilis spicata sw lower estuary
Saltwort Salicornia sp. sw low/mid estuary
Cattails Lvp.@us augustifolia bw cove/headwaters
Reedgrass (Tall Reed) Phragmites australis bw cove/mid estuary
Sedge grass Scirpus sp. bw mid estuary
Rushes Juncus sp. bw mid estuary
Peat moss Sphagnum sp. fw headwaters
Atlantic white cedar Chamaecvparis thyoides fw upper estuary
/headwaters
Black spruce Picea marina fw upper estuary
/headwaters

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
sw=saltwater, bw=brackish water, fw=freshwater

2. The vegetation type changes with salinity and tidal innunda-
tion. Salt pannes, present in the lower estuary are hypersaline
and partially submerged. Such an environment is almost exclu-
sively inhabited by Salicornia sp., a saltwort. The presence of
the reed grass Phragmites sp. is an indicator of disturbed estu-
arine wetlands, particulary where natural flushing by saltwater
has been altered, or sediment loading is occuring (Neiring and
Warren, 1977). Reed grasses and cattails (a fresh water plant)
are observed in the southwestern end of the cove, where fresh-
water discharges dilute the seawater (Kenenski, 1986). Other
brackish and fresh water species common to the middle and upper
reaches of the river are listed in Table 4-1. All of these plant
species provide food, nesting sites, and protection for a wide

variety of birds and mammals, and function as a nursery ground
for fish where these stands are emergent (Pierce, 1977).

C. Birdlife

1. Birds are the most easily observed and, therefore, the best
known group of animals within the watershed. The geographic
location of the river makes it a convenient migratory resting
spot for many different species of waterfowl (Gould, 1986). The
birdlife of the watershed are classified under four categories,
based primarily on time of year observed (after Enser, 1986):

(a) Nesting species - these species utilize the area for
principally breeding and nesting purposes usually in the
spring and summer.

(b) Feeding species - these birds are observed during the
same sesonal period as the nesting species, however, do not
use the watershed as a nesting area. These species nest
elsewhere or are non-breeding in this area.

(c) Transient species - Although bird populations fluc-
tuate all year round, the peak migration season occurs in
the late spring and early fall. Transient, or migratory,
birds are opportunistic, using only those areas convenient
to their migration path.

(d) Wintering species - Several species of birds remain in
the watershed for some period of time in the winter. Water-
fowl are attracted to the Narrow River in the winter because
of the relative rarity of freezing over due to higher sali-
nity.

2. Table 4-2 is a list of birds that have been observed in the
wetlands of the Narrow River. Those species which utilize the
wetlands as a resting spot are habitat specific and cannot easily
adapt to upland or shore habitats. Thus, as more and more wet-
lands are filled or obscurred by development, the value of these
areas as stopovers increases dramatically (Enser, 1986).

C. Other wildlife

Additional species of wildlife reported for the Narrow River
wetlands habitat include muskrat (in the less saline regions), snap-
ping turtles and deer in the salt marshes, and salamanders, frogs,
toads, snakes, rabbits, raccoons, and deer in the freshwater wetlands
(Enser, 1986; Husband, 1986; Cronin, 1986).

D. Rare and Uncommon Species

1. There are several species of plants and animals of the wet-
lands habitat known to be rare or uncommon. Table 4-3 describes
each species and their significance. Rare and uncommon species
enrich the natural diversitV of the wetlands, augmenting the
ecosystem's value as a natural resource.

Table 4-2. Birds of the Narrow River wetlands habitat.
(data from Enser, 1986; Gould, 1986).

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Common name ; Nesting Feeding Transient Wintering

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

Mute Swan
Canada Goose
Mallard
Black Duck
Canvasback
Greater Scaup
Golden Eye
Bufflehead
Red-breasted Merganser
Atlantic Brant
American Wigeon
Gadwall
Blue-winged Teal
Osprey
Red-winged Blackbird
Sharp-tailed Sparrow
Swamp Sparrow
Song Sparrow
Great Blue Heron
Little Blue Heron
Black-crowned Heron
Glossy This
Great Egret
Snowy Egret
Ring-billed gull
Herring gull
Great BlackBacked Gull
Common Tern
Least Tern
Plovers
Spotted Sandpiper
Rails

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

Table 4-3. Rare and Uncommon Wildlife of the Narrow River
Wetlands Habitat (data from Enser, 1986).

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Common Name Scientific Name Significance
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sea Pink Sabatia One of 6 sites in Rhode Island, con-
stellaris firmed in the Narrow River only within
the past 5 years, considered endangered
in Massachusetts.

Olney's Scirpus One of three sites in the state, in-
Sedge onley dicative of a good brackish water system.

Robust Scirpus One of 5 sites in the state, occurs
Sedge robustus in the Narrow River watershed in a stand
of 50 ft. diameter.

Osprey Pandion Nesting site active for 10 years, one of
haliaetus 17 sites in Rhode Island, one young ob-
served in 1985 (Enser, 1986) and again in
1986 (Kenenski, 1986).

Least Sterna Last reported nesting at this
Tern albifrons site in the 1960's, generally believed to
have left the area because of increased
recreational use. Observed at 10 other
sites in the state, might return if beach
access were limited.

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

E. Human Impacts

1. Almost every ma or activity of human society can be expected to
have some impact on wetlands (Darnell, 1978). Upland alterations
can accelerate runoff, reduce groundwater levels, increase sediment
load, alter the thermal regime, and increase pollutant loadings
(Daiber, 1986). Dredging and filling operations can obliterate
entire wetland habitats, severely effecting the productivity of the
ecosystem. This, in turn, can lower the resource value to the
community and threaten future uses (Darnell, 1978). Ignoring the
functions of wetlands which are of direct benefit to society, i.e.,
flood storage and conveyance, shoreline stabilization, critical
habitat for wildlife, and enhancement of estuarine productivity,
can lead to irreplaceable losses (Darnell, 1978). Educational ,
recreational, scientific, and aesthetic qualities are additional
values perceived as beneficial to society (Roman and Good, 1983).

2. As Darnell (1978) and Neiring (1978) both agree, wetlands are
a natural heritage that are being destroyed before their full
values can be realized and utilized efficiently by society. Loss

of the wetlands surrounding the Narrow River can have severe
repercussions throughout the entire watershed. In order to per-
petuate this natural heritage, a sound program of education,
research, conservation, recreation, and ecological management
must be developed (Daiber, 1986).

410.3 The Open Water and Aquatic Habitat

A. Description

1. Several aquatic habitats can be found within the Narrow River
watershed, each with a different physical, chemical, and biologi-
cal setting. The aquatic environments range from a well-flushed
estuary near the mouth, to freshwater kettlehole ponds in the
headwaters region. Each habitat supports a different community
where species of plants and animals are specifically adapted to
the physical and chemical characteristics of their environment.

2. One of the more important aquatic habitats within the water-
shed is that which supports the estuarine subtidal community
(Clarke, 1977). Typical inhabitants of this community include
submerged seagrasses, shellfish and finfish, mudworms, and many
planktonic (microscopioc free-floating) forms. This community is
recognized as the most productive of all aquatic habitats, which
can be related to the combination of natural features in the
estuary (tidal flow, freshwater flow, shallowness, confinement),
providing an environment which encourages use by a number of
different populations.

3. In coastal estuaries, the community composition (plankton,
seagrasses, invertebrates, fish and shellfish) enables large
quanities of nutrients to be produced and exchanged between
wetlands and openwater environments, supporting a growing and
complex web of consumer populations. Human activities frequently
disturb and interfere with the estuarine productivity, resulting
in such far-reaching effects as reduction of finfish and shell-
fish harvests, lowering income for fisherman, and loss of recrea-
tional revenue to municipalities due to reduction in sportfish
populations. These effects have already been felt in the Salt
Ponds region of southern Rhode Island (Olsen and Lee, 1984).

B. Plankton

1. Plankton are microscopic organisms (bacteria, diatoms, uni-
and multicellular algae) which make up the lower levels of the
food web and live suspended in the water column. Within the
Narrow River, over 150 species of phytoplankton have been identi-
fied (Miller,1972; Hanisack, 1973). The number and diversity of
phytoplankton varies longitudinally along the river depending on

salinity and temperature conditions as they vary throughout the
year (Miller, 1972; Hanisack, 1973). Samples taken from the
phytoplankton community of the Narrow River have produced some
interesting discoveries. One species, Euglena proxima, normally
found only within oxygenated zones, was collected from the anoxic
waters of the Lower Pond (Miller, 1972) and had apparently accli-
mated to the low oxygen conditions.

2. Miller (1972) also recorded the unique occurrence of a species
known as Hermesinum adriaticum, typically observed in the Black,
Adriatic, and Mediterranean Seas. Only two species of Hermesinum
are known to exist in the world. The diatom Chaetoceros fallax and
the flagellate Circosphaera roscoffensis have also been collected
in the Narrow River and have been seen in only a few locations in
the world. One diatom, Chaetocerus ceratosporus var. brachysetus
is unique to the Narrow River; it has not been documented in any
other area of the world (Hargraves, 1986b). As the river is exa-
mined more closely, it is probable that more rare and unique spe-
cies will be found in the plankton or on the river bottom. Fur-
ther, the phytoplankton composition for the Lower Pond was found to
be very similar to that of a Norwegian anoxic basin, The
Hunnebunnen (Miller, 1972). This biologic comparison, preceding
Gaines' (1975) physical comparison to the deep anoxic fjords of the
boreal zone, further substantiates the unusual character of these
estuarine environments.

3. Phytoplankton are the primary food source for zooplankton
(microscopic animals), thus, the number and diversity of zoo-
plankton in the Narrow River depends primarily on the abundance
and diversity of phytoplankton, in addition to salinity and
temperature gradients (Vargo, 1973). Typical zooplankters in the
Narrow River include barnacle larvae, mudworm larvae, and cope-
pods (microscopic crustaceans) for which population densities
tend to peak in the spring months of March through May (Vargo,
1973).

4. Naturally occurring bacteria act as the scavengers of the
plankton community. Unique species which occur in the Narrow
River include Chromatium sp., a pink bacteria, and Chlorobium
sp., a green bacteria. These species occupy the anoxic zones,
acting as decomposers for falling detrital material. In high
concentrations, Chromatium sp. gives the two basins a pinkish-
colored submerged layer (Miller, 1972). Anthropogenically intro-
duced coliform bacteria have been well-documented within the
Narrow River (see Chapter III) and are important in that they are
indicators of sewage waste material.

C. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation

1. Submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) is an often overlooked

group in the coastal community, yet it forms an integral and
critical component of the subtidal ecosystem. Many boaters find
the submerged grasses a menace to their propellers, while swim-
mers find its presence to be a nuisance. Without SAV, however,
the overall productivity of the estuary can be severely cur-
tailed. Among the more important functions of SAV are (after
Wood, et al., 1969):

- a high organic productivity
- providing organic matter to the estuarine ecosystem
- reducing current velocities, promoting sedimentation
- binding the bottom sediments, slowing erosion
- providing a nursery for migrating fish
- a food source for ducks and other waterfowl
- a permanent residence for invertebrates

Table 4-4. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation observed in the Narrow
River (from Wright, et al. 1949).

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

Common Scientific Mode of Observed
name name Occurrence Location

----------------------------------------------------------------
Narrowleaf Potamogeton Infrequent a single cove
Pondweed berchtoldi in the upper
basins

Sago Potamogeton Infrequent- sporadically
Pondweed pectinatus Moderate in the upper
basins

Claspingleaf Potamogeton Infrequent the northern
Pondweed perfoliatus basins

Wigeon Ruppia Infrequent shallow coves
Grass maritima

Horned Zannichellia Infrequent eastern shore
Pondweed palustris north of
Middlebridge

Eelgrass Zostera Infrequent- south and
marina Moderate north of
Middlebridge,
patches in
The Cove

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

2. Six species of SAV have been documented in the Narrow River
by Wright, et al. (1949) and are presented in Table 4-4. No

known inventories have occurred since that time to determine the
present status of SAV.

D. Finfish

1. Attracted by the shallow, warm, protected waters, finfish have
a long history of proliferation in the Narrow River. In the
anecdotal "Jonnycake Papers of Shepard Tom" (Hazard, 1915), it
was mentioned that as early as 1675, local inhabitants would
travel down from Wickford to catch white perch from the Cove.
Another account tells of the migration of striped bass that came
to winter in the ponds during the late 1700's:

"two of the Misses Brown from Tower Hill-when they came to
the fording place at Narrow River ... were forced to dis-
mount [their horses) and pass over afoot on the backs of
the fishes that were jammed in such a solid mass as to be
unable to move individually in any direction except as the
entire mass was carried along by the tide..."

2. Striped bass still winter in the ponds, and, in the 1950's a
substantial striped bass fishery is reported to have existed
within the river (O'Brien, 1977). However, their present numbers
are considerably reduced. O'Brien (1977), using a trawl net, was
only able to collect a total of twenty-two specimens during his
two year study.

3. Almost fifty species of fish have been documented to use the
Narrow River at some point in their life history. A list of
species, their location in the river, and use of the river is
presented in Table 4-5. Many of the species are small (i.e.,
mummichugs, sticklebacks, silversides), serving as a food source
for the larger, edible.sport fish. Among the edible fish, common
in the lower estuarine reaches of the river, are winter flounder,
white perch, American eel, pollack, and bluefish. In the upper
fresh water reaches, chain pickerel, yellow perch, largemouth
bass and stocked trout (Silver Spring Lake) are frequently caught
(Guthrie and Stolgitis, 1977).

4. There is a considerable spatial overlap between the fresh and
marine species (Horton, 1958). For example, chain pickerel (a
freshwater species) has been collected from the upper basin, as
have those species considered strictly marine, i.e., cod, men-
haden and toadfish. This overlap creates a unique and diverse
ecosystem in the upper pond, with both fresh and marine finfish
cohabitating within the extremes of their preferred natural envi-
ronments.

Table 4-r.. Finfish in the Narrow River

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Co mmo Scientific Spawning/ Transient/
Name Name Location Breeding Resident Wintering Migrant Rare
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alewife Pomolobus psuedoharangus L,M.U
American eel Anguilla rostrata L,M,U
Atlantic silversides Menidia menidia L,M,U
Inland silversides Menidia beryllinia L,M
Sheepshead minnow Cyprinodon vartegatus L,M.U
Striped mummichug Fundulus majalis L,M,U
Common mummichug Fundulus heteroclitus L,M,U
Silver gar Tylosurus marinus U
Anchovy Anchoa mitchilli U
Striped anchovy Anchoa hepsetus U
Pipefish Sygnathus fuscus L.M.U
2-spine stickleback Gasterosteus wheatlandi L,M
3-spine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus L,M,U
4-spine stickleback Apeltes quadracus L,M,U
9-spine stickleback Pungitius pungitius L.M
Menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus L,M,U
Sand eel Ammodytes americanus L,M
Short horned sculpin Myoxocephalus scorpius L.M
White flounder Psuedoplueronectes americanus L,M,U
Herring Clapea harengus M,U
Tautog Tautoga onitus L,M,U
Pollack Pollachias virens L,M,U
White Perch Merone americum L,M,U
Striped bass Worone saxatalis L.M.U
Tomcod Microgadus tomeod L,M,U
Blueback Pomolobus aestivalis U
Halfbeak Hyporhamphus unifasciatus U
Cod Gadus callarias M,U
Hake Urophcus sp. U
Hogchoker Achirus faciatus U
Mullet !1@ cephalus U
N. Barracuda Syphraena borealis U
Hardtail Caranx crysos U
Lookdown Selene vomer U
Rudderfish geriola zonata U
Threadfin Alectis ciliaris U
Round pompano Trachinotus falcutus U
Common pompano Trachinotus aerolinus U
Bluefish Pomatus salatrix U
Common bigeye Pricantus arenatus U
Naked Roby Gobisoma h2jS_j U
Toadfish Opsanus tau U

SPECIES USUALLY FOUND IN FRESHWATER:
Large mouth bass Micropterus salmoides L,M,U
Brown bullhead Amerius nebulosus U
Chain pickerel Esox ni Rer U
R. Banded killifish Fundulus diaphanus U
Yellow parch Perca flavescens U
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
L-lower estuary, M-middle estuary. U-Upper and Lower Pond
Data compiled from Horton, 1958; Gordon, 1960; Mulkana, 1964; Bond, 1968; Burgess,1971; O'Keefe, 1972; O'Brien, 1977;
and Bengston, 1982.

5. The Narrow River is reknown in the state for its annual run of
alewives, or buckies, which spawn in Pausacaco (Carr) Pond. Once
the alewives reach the pond and spawn, they turn immediately and
head back to open ocean, passing others still migrating upstream
(Cooper, 1961). However, the alewives suffer a huge mortality
rate; 50% of the migrating population never return to the sea
(Durbin, et al., 1979). The spent alewives sink to the bottom
and become an important source of nutrients for the lower reaches
of the river, turning a potentially nutrient poor region into a
productive nursery for young fish (Durbin, et al., 1979). Resi-
dent fish in Pausacaco @Carr) Pond have growth rates considered
much higher than the statewide average which is also attributed
to the alewife migration (Guthrie and Stolgitis, 1977.).

6. The fish population of the Narrow River, although diverse,
does not support any commercial operations of economic signifi-
cance. There are a large number of people involved in recrea-
tional fishing, however, the revenue from this is not known.

E. Shellfish

1. The Narrow River also supports a modest shellfish population,
the distribution of which depends on the bottom sediment type and
the salinity regime. Common sessile species encountered in the
river include quahogs, mussels, razor clams, and softshell clams.
The bluecrab is able to move freely throughout the estuary and is
commonly encountered near the shore searching for food (Campbell,
1957).

2. It is interesting to note that Campbell's 1957 survey found
almost no soft shell clams within the river. The following year,
Wright (1958) surveyed the beds and determined that the river had
been over-exploited, eventually leading to special catch and
enforcement regulations enacted by the DEM (Table 4-6). Results
from Baczenski and Ganzs' 1980 survey indicate several dense
softshell clam beds. Thus, it is clear that the shellfish popu-
lations fluctuate, whether or not this is a result of natural
cycles or the DEM's catch regulations cannot be determined.

3. The location and mean densities of shellfish species found in
the river, as surveyed by Baczenski and Ganz (1980), are illus-
trated in Figure 4-4. The shellfish population supports a few
small commercial operations, concentrating primarily on bluecrabs
and oysters. The economic significance of these operations are
minimal (Ganz, 1986). The major harvestors and consumers of
shellfish in the river are the year-round and summer residents.

F. Rare and Uncommon Species

A rare seacucumber has been documented in the southern portion of

2/sq. meter

OYSTERS
(Crassostrea virginica)
6/sq. mAtPr

RAZOR CLAMS
(Ensis directus)

>0.5/sq. meter

MUSSELS
(Mytilus edulis)
CLAMS 0.5/sq. meter
(Mya arenaria) CLAMS
>0.5/sq.meter
4/sq. meter

>0.5/sq. meter
r- J 2/sq. meter QUAHOGS
(Mercenaria mercenaria)

Figure 4-4. Location of shellfish beds in the Narrow River. Numbers
indicate the approximate mean density of shellfish recorded
(Data from Baczenski and Ganz, 1980).

Table 4-6. Minimum Size and Catch for shellfish.

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

Catch
Species Size commercial, resident

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Quahaug I" smallest diameter 1/2 bu/day, 1 peck/day
Clam 1 1/2" maximum diameter 11 ft
Mussel 1 1/2" maximum diameter ---------------
Oyster 3" longest axis it 9 it
Blue crab 4 1/8" tip to tip ---------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Data from R.I. DEM, 1985 & 1986.

the estuary, near the Cove, the only location in the state where this
species occurs (Seavy, 1975). Several uncommon fish species have also
been known to inadvertently enter the estuary. Such species include
the Atlantic Sturgeon (Enser, 1986), Northern Barracuda (Gordon,
1960), and a moonfish (preserved at the URI Bay Campus).

G. Human Impacts

1. Phytoplankton utilize sunlight to convert nutrients for growth
and are in turn consumed by zooplankton. When nutrient levels
are elevated, either naturally or by increased human inputs,
phytoplankton populations bloom, often causing an unsightly slime
on the water surface. A high incidence of cell death and conse-
quent decay depelete the oxygen available to finfish and shell-
fish populations.

2. Increased sedimentation loads, resulting from upland altera-
tion and construction, or from dredge and disposal activity
(Chapter VI), can have the opposite effect. The sediments in-
crease turbidity and decrease the light available to phytoplank-
ton which results in a reduction of population densities, thus
depriving the estuarine ecosystem of its most basic food source.

3. The need for a relatively high intensity of light and slight-
ly sheltered waters places most SAV beds in shallow marginal
waters, historically the most prominent area for competing with
human activities. Eutrophication, increased runoff rates, and
dredging are all events resulting in high turbidity, in turn,
decreasing light available for photosynthesis, eventually oblit-
erating submerged seagrass beds (Zeimann, 1977). Filling in
seagrass beds reduces the habitat available for larval fish
nurseries, which would affect the overall population stock, and
eliminate the habitat for use by resident invertebrates. Unfor-
tunately, when seagrass beds are disturbed or destroyed, recovery
times are slow; up to 30 years were required for beds to recover
from the "wasting disease" of Zostera sp. beds in the 1930's
(Zeimann, 1977).

4. Shellfish filter large quantities of water through their
bodies each day, extracting planktonic forms and other particu-
late matter as a food source for growth and development. Because
of this somewhat nondiscriminatory mode of feeding, shellfish
frequently concentrate nonessential or detrimental particles
(i.e., trace metals and pathogens) in their gut, depending on the
ambient water quality. If the shellfish are collected and con-
sumed uncooked by humans, the chance for contraction of such
diseases as infectious hepatitis, typhoid, chlorea, and strepto-
coccus are high. For this reason, when water quality is tested
for specific parameters (i.e., coliform bacteria) and found to
exceed state standards, bans must be imposed for the protection
of the general public health. Two shellfish bans have been
imposed in the Narrow River within the past seven years due to
high coliform bacteria counts; the first closing was in August of
1979 lasting until the following spring; the second closing,
July, 1986, was imposed until water quality standards were re-
stored to SA quality.

410.4 The Terrestrial Habitat

A. Description

1. Characterization of the terrestrial habitat has not been
extensively documented in the past. Generally, the habitat
covers the area upland of the wetland edge and extends to the
boundaries of the watershed. The species which inhabit the
uplands perform several functions which are vital to the main-
tenance of the habitats downslope.

2. Vegetation, in an undisturbed watershed, virtually eliminates
impacts associated with sudden discharges of freshwater, such as
increased sediment loads and erosion, due to storm events
(Hewlett and Nutter, 1970). The roots, stems, and leaves help to
absorb and slow the runoff, allowing filtration into the soils
and mitigation of erosive events (Palfrey and Bradley, 1981).

3. Terrestrial wildlife migrate back and forth each day utiliz-
ing the wetlands for food and nesting purposes (Golet, 1986).
Thus, the wildlife are serving as vectors for the import and
export of nutrients to the food web. This establishes yet
another link in the web of interrelationships which exist within
the Narrow River ecosystem.

B. Flora and Fauna

1. Vegetation is typical of the oak/mixed hardwood of the re-
gion, indicating generally sandy soils and a history of forest
fires in the eastern watershed (River Landscapes, 1976). Second-

ary growth consists of both shrubs and trees (eastern red cedar,
dogwood, aspen, birch) and is typically found in disturbed and/or
abandoned areas (the southern portion of the watershed).

2. A large number of small mammals can be found, i.e., mice,
squirrels, skunks, foxes, raccoons and rabbits. Large mammals
such as deer, and more recently the coyote (in North Kingstown)
have been observed (Narragansett Times, 1986). Birdlife abounds
and includes such common species as sparrows, owls, blue jays,
cardinals, quail, and meadowlarks (River Landscapes, 1976) that
can be seen frequently near the watershed boundaries.

3. Several rare and uncommon plants are known to occur within the
terrestrial bounds of the watershed. One such plant is a rare
luminescent moss (Schistostega sp.) found within the entrance to
one of several abandoned graphite mines in the region and is be-
lieved to be one of only a few sites in New England. In addition,
there exists a plant community composed of a large variety of
ferns. At this site, approximately a dozen different fern species
can be found, an unusually diverse assemblage for a considerably
small area. The site is utilized for educational purposes by the
University of Rhode Island.

C. Human Impacts

1. The clearing of land, for construction and development,
obliterates vegetation and its mitigative effects on surface
water runoff impacts. This is extremely important in those
regions of the watershed characterized by steep slopes. Without
the extensive root systems of mature trees, the slopes are desta-
bilized, increasing the potential for erosive processes (Sidle,
et al., 1985). Rain, falling on bare sandy soils, dislodges
particles and further increases the likelihood of erosion and
high sediment loads (Palfrey and Bradley, 1981). Ultimately,
erosion results in excessive turbidity in the river, reducing
water quality and affecting fish, shellfish, SAV, and plankton
populations. Increased discharges of freshwater to the wetlands
and river, due to lack of attenuation of flow by vegetation, can
eventually disturb the natural salinity and hydrology of the
habitat, in turn, effecting the faunal communities (Daiber,
1986).

2. As the region suburbanizes and develops, some animal species
considered undesirable will increase, however, most will be
crowded out of the region as a result of the habitat destruction
and disurbances (River Landscapes, 1976). The loss of these
species weakens the link which helps to maintain watershed diver-
sity and productivity.

100

410.5 Summary

A. The wetlands of the watershed are highly productive, and supple-
ment the productivity of the adjacent estuary. The vegetation forms
the basis of this productivity, serving as a major food source for
fish, birdlife, and upland animals. The wetlands also provide several
significant functions which are beneficial to the surrounding resi-
dential communities. These include a nutrient source, a rudimentary
water filter, erosion control, flood abatement storage, and a critical
wildlife habitat. Destruction of the wetlands can reduce the value of
these functions, drastically changing the value of the watershed as a
natural resource (Darnell, 1979).

B. The aquatic habitat supports a diverse community with several
unique species. In the upper basins of the river, rare microorganisms
flourish, phytoplankton populations simulate those found in Norwegian
climes, and freshwater and marine fish intermingle. The best known
alewive run in the state occurs in the Narrow River each year, yield-
ing a rich source of nutrients in an otherwise nutrient poor region.
A rare sea cucumber is known to exist in the lower Cove region of the
estuary. Productivity in the estuarine environment is, in part,
provided by submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), which also serves as a
nursery for young fish and invertebrates. The fish and shellfish
populations increase the resource value of the river by supporting
many recreational and sport fishing activities, as well as a few small
commercial operations.

C. The terrestrial uplands surrounding these environments contribute
to overall productivity of the region by maintaining a structurally
diverse habitat which increases wildlife species abundance and diver-
sity. A rare moss is known to exist on the western slopes, and an
unusually diverse stand of ferns can be found in the headwaters re-
gion. Upland vegetation aids in the maintenance of water quality and
in mitigating runoff, the impacts of which can be devastating to the
wetland and aquatic communities.

D. The ecological processes of the Narrow River watershed make it a
complex support system for a very diverse floral and faunal community
utilizing several different habitats. Inextricable ties have evolved
which contribute to the productivity of the estuary and consequently
to the abundance and diversity of animal populations which inhabit the
watershed. Numerous factors, in whole or in part, may be responsible
for population decreases; keeping the overall resource value of the
Narrow River high requires the protection or preservation of all com-
ponents of the ecosystem, the wetlands, water quality, and the sur-
rounding land uses. The watershed's ecological productivity is highly
subject to human intervention; the manner in which human activites
are managed now, and in the future will determine the degree to which
the environment of the Narrow River watershed can be maintained.

101

420. MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS AND INITIATIVES

Based on Section 410, Findings of Fact, and the goals to preserve
and protect the resources of the river, the following regulations and
iniatives are deemed necessary:

420.1 Controls for Habitat Protection

A. Alterations to salt marshes and contiguous freshwater or brackish
water marshes within the watershed are prohibited.

B. A buffer zone shall be established contiguous to the most inland
edge of the coastal habitat of concern. The width of the buffer shall
be no less than 200 feet in those lands classified as Lands of Criti-
cal Concern (Section 320.1B,2,f) and not less than 100 f-e-et To'r those
lands which abut tributatries in Self-Sustaining Lands (Section
320.lA,2,d).

C. Filling, removing, and grading (CRMP, Section 300.2) is prohibited
on any shoreline, wetland, or buffer zone throughout the watershed.

D. Dredging and Disposal

1. Dredging (CRMP, Section 300.9) is prohibited within the
Narrow River watershed.

2. Disposal (CRMP, Section 300.9) of foreign dredged material is
prohibited on the shoreline, wetlands and buffer zones of the
watershed, unless a Council-approved program of wetland building
or rehabilitation has been established. Subaqueous dumping of
dredged material is also prohibited in the Narrow River.

420. Acquisition of Environmentally Sensitive Lands

The most permanent protection afforded to sensitive lands is the
prevention of their alteration through direct acquisition. It is the
mutual responsibility of local groups and municipal and state agencies
to promote such efforts in order to ensure continued existance of
these fragile resources.

A. Conservation Easements

1. Definition. A conservation easement is a contract between a
landowner and a conservation group or land trust, in which the
landowner agrees not to develop her/his land, but to preserve it
in its natural state. The easement permantly prevents residen-
tial, commercial and industrial development of the property,

102

inproper or unnecessary removal of vegetation, and the dumping or
excavation of any materials. Executing the contract commits the
landowner to "donating" development rights to the towns, conser-
vation group or land trust, but retains all other rights of
ownership not restricted by the agreement.

2. CRMC will encourage conservation easements to be held by each
town, and such organizations/agencies as the Narrow River, Narra-
gansett, and South Kingstown Land Trusts or the Audubon Society.

B. Natural Heritage Preservation Revolving Loan Fund

1. Definition. The Department of Environmental Management is
administering a $2 million fund that will allow preservation
societies, land trusts, non-profit organizations, and local com-
munities to preserve open space/agricultural lands deemed of
scenic or ecological value, in perpetuity. The monies are avail-
able on a revolving loan basis ($250,000 maximum loan) and are
for lands not less than 5 acres.

2. The CRMC encourages the appropriation of such monies by the
individual towns, local communities, Narrow River Preservation
Association, Narrow River Land Trust, and the Nature Conservancy,
for the preservation of lands in the watershed. Priorities for
acquistion and preservation should include those lands which
support rare, uncommon or endangered species, in addition to
wetlands, banks and slopes, and significant cultural resources
located along the river's edge.

C. Critical Resource or Conservancy Zoning

The towns are encouraged to make provisions in their respective
zoning ordinances for the rezoning of critical areas for conservation
purposes in an effort to preserve the unique amenities of the water-
shed. Such efforts are currently underway in the town of Barrington,
Rhode Island.

D. Municipal Easements

Municipal agencies are encouraged to utilize provisions of their
respective subdivision ordinances to maintain open space areas through
dedication and easements.

420.3 Public Education Programs

Educational programs, informing the general public as to the
function of the different habitats (wetlands, aquatic and open water,
terrestrial) and their value to society, should be initiated. These
programs should be aimed at community residents and local elementary

103

and secondary schools. Emphasis at the community level should be
placed on how land gifts and dedications, conservation easements, and
special registration of unique amenities found on private properties
will serve to protect critical habitats. The R.I. DEM is investiga-
ting the applicability of such educational programs within the Wood-
Pawcatuck watershed.

L04

Chapter FJOLve,
]Flood and Storm
Hazards

@JO,51.

510.0 FINDINGS OF FACT

510.1 Introduction

A. The Floodplain Along The Narrow River

1. The character of the Narrow River drainage system is related
to the interaction of several factors, including climate, topo-
graphy, vegetation, and soil. Sediments transported by the river
are periodically deposited in the channel and adjacent floodplain
(Figure 5-1). The floodplain is defined as that land adjacent to
a watercourse or drainageway which has periodically been inun-
dated by flood waters and sediment (Thurow et al. 1975).

2. When water overflows the channel, usually during intense rain
events and storms, the river is known to be in flood stage and
can be expected to cause damage to property within the flood
prone areas. A river channel is formed and maintained by this
overflow, or discharge, and can be expected to emerge from its
banks and cover part of the adjacent land area with water and
sediment once every year or so (Keller, 1975). This has been
apparent in the Middlebridge area in the past several years
where, during storms, the bank flow has reached the level of the
bridge and spilled onto the adjacent parking area (Lewis, 1986).

3. Flood-prone areas exist throughout the Narrow River watershed
area, from Silver Spring Lake in the north, to the Kinney Road
area in the south (Map 13). The boundaries are delineated on
flood insurance maps by the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), and incorporate estimates of the land area located in the
A zones (subject to 100-year flood elevation), and the high
hazard, or V zone (subject to 100-year coastal flood and high
velocity waves). In addition to these areas, there also exists a
proportional amount of land subject to flood elevations from 100-
year to 500-year flood events.

B. Threats to Development in the Floodplain

1. Several factors controlling flood damages include land use
within the flood prone areas and the magnitude and duration of
flooding event. Land clearing and the associated development
increase runoff, erosion, and the occurrence of flood hazards,
and is related to the percentage of impervious surfaces and area
served by storm sewers (Keller, 1975). While certain sections of
the Narrow River drainage basin are densely developed, impervious
surfaces and storm drains in the watershed as a whole account for
only slightly more than 5 percent of the land area, and does not
greatly increase the flood hazard above its present level.

107

Floodpi.ain
River Channel

Figure 5-1. A simplified model of the Narrow River channel and flood-
plain (from Keller, 1975).

2. Concern over flooding in the largely undeveloped northern
area is related chiefly to rainfall-runoff events, while flood
effects in the lower and middle estuarine areas are compounded by
tidal surges entering through the Narrows. According to the most
recent FEMA flood insurance maps and town tax maps, more than 900
lots of record are currently located wholly or partially within
the 100-year flood zone, with a total structural value exceeding
$15 million (Table 5-1). The majority of the houses located in
the A zone are in the middle estuarine region, adjacent to the
river, and in low depression areas scattered throughout the
watershed. Those in the V zone lie in a small area near the
rocky headlands at the Narrows.

Table 5-1. Lots of Record Located within the Narrow River Flood-
zones (data from 1985 aerial photographs and municipal
tax records.)

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

Estimated Value
Town A Zone V Zone of Structure

----------------------------------------------------------------------
South Kingstown 277 - $698179500
Narragansett 519 5 $10,406,976
North Kingstown 10i - N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A - not available

3. Theoretically, a 100-vear flood (used as the basis for flood
zone mapping and regulation) has a one in 100, or one percent,

108

chance of occurring in any one year, although two or more 100-year
floods, or none, could occur (FIAC, 1985). Planning for such
hazardous events is tenuous, at best.

4. The floodplain consists of two distinct areas: the floodway,
located in flood conveyance areas adjacent to streams and, the
flood fringe, the outer areas subject to lower flood depths and
velocities (Figure 5-2). State and local floodplain programs
usually prohibit permanent buildings and fills in floodway areas,
while permitting a wide range of structural uses in flood fringe
areas, if elevated or flood-proofed above the base (100-year)
flood level. Within the extent of the floodway area, permitted
uses have typically included wildlife sanctuaries, hiking trails,
outdoor plant nurseries, etc. (Keller, 1975). In the Narrow
River watershed, much of the floodplain has been developed for
residential use, with the potential for creating a host of prob-
lems in the event of flooding, therefore different regulations
must be developed. For example, ISDS, commonly used throughout
the watershed, are located within these flood prone areas. In
the event of innundation by flood waters, effluent from the ISDS,
along with other pollutants, could flush to the surface, thus
contaminating the river. The threat of such an occurrence com-
pounds the existing concern over water quality problems.

X
4
",400,0
010 010 4 C')
0 0 h-
A 1Z
_J

je
4Q
0
es
4-
0
Floors above* ee@\00 0
floods
'o

Flood proof
buildings

Figure 5-2. Flood hazard areas (Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources, Flood Insurance, St. Paul, 1972)

109

510.2 Occurrences of Past Storm Events

A. Physiographical Characteristics Influencing Storm Events

1. The New England area lies in the path of the "prevailing
westerlies" and is influenced by meteorological factors which
produce such effects as the tropical hurricanes and coastal
storms from the west and southeast. Because of exposure to these
climatic effects and due to topographical influences, the river
is subject to periodic flooding events.

2. Although a severe storm has not impacted the area in more
than 30 years, several of the more than 71 storms to have impac-
ted Rhode Island (Olsen and Lee, 1984) have affected the Narrow
River area (Table 5-2). While irregular in occurrence, the
average hurricane frequency within Rhode Island has been about
once every seven years (Olsen and Lee, 1975). Damages from such
storms are caused most often from tidal surge, flooding from
heavy rain, action of stormdriven waves, and high velocity winds
(Keller, 1975). The location of the Narrow River, within the
lower reaches of Narragansett Bay and behind the Narragansett
Pier Beach area, reduces its exposure to the direct force of
hurricanes and coastal storms approaching the south coast and
thus, is somewhat protected.

3. The official hurricane season extends from June through
November, however, hurricanes most frequently occur during the
months of August, September, and October (Frank, 1985). National
Weather Service representatives suggest that the area is long
overdue for a major hurricane (McCarthy, 1985).

B. Physical Characteristics Of Hurricanes

1. Hurricanes are powerful, tropical storms, characterized by low
barometric pressure, high wind speeds (greater than 74 miles per
hour), torrential rain, large waves and swells, and tidal surges.
The highest velocity winds associated with hurricanes, known to
exceed speeds of 150 mph, occur at points to the right of the
storm center. Because destruction by the wind and waves is
greatest in this area, it is called the "dangerous semi-circle"
(U.S. Army Corps, 1960). A hurricane following a track over
Westerly, Rhode Island, 20 miles west of Narragansett Pier, would
place the Narrow River within this general area, as was the case
during the most recent and severe hurricanes of 1938 and 1954.

2. Large ocean waves, generated by hurricane winds, can travel
great distances and reach distant shores one or two days prior to
the onset of the hurricane, causing damage even before the full
fury of the storm is released. These large waves have caused
massive destruction to the dunes along the south shore of Rhode

110

Table 5-2. Hurricane Events Impacting the Narrow River Watershed
(data from archives of the Narragansett Times)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date Comments

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Aug., 1635 "...tide rose at Narragansett 14 feet higher
than ordinary and drowned 8 Indians..."

Aug., 1638 "...It flowed twice in 6 hours, and about
Narragansett it raised the tide 14 or 15 feet
above the ordinary spring tide

Sept., 1815 "...40 foot waves .... trees uprooted, fences,
stone walls blown down... the middlebridge over
Pettaquamscutt River was swept away, as water
extended from the foot of the hill to a
considerable distance up the pasturage..."
Several drownings were reported in the cove
and river area.

Sept., 1869 "...barns, chimneys, fences, trees whirled about,..
horses killed..., closed tourist season..."

Aug., 1924 (northeaster) "...trees knocked down, roads
blocked, utilities cut off, "

Sept., 1938 "...sand dunes between the Dunes Club and Narrow
River were leveled... 13 cars, school bus,...
bodies pulled out of Pier Pond... bathhouses and
seawall crushed and carried across Beach Street ...
2 cars washed off Boston Neck..., middlebridge
washed out ... Oct. 21, still clearing debris..."

Sept., 1944 "...high tides as far as Boon Street..."

Aug., 1954 "...buildings in pond on Boston Neck and Ouida ...
Boston Neck and Beach Street blocked by debris ...
properties in areas above Beach Street and Narra-
gansett Avenue flooded to depths of more than 6
feet"

Sept., 1960 "...trees blown down .... sand washed over Boston
Neck.... 75 mph winds ..."

Sept., 1985 "..little rain ... high winds, tree limbs, branches
blown down.... power lines down .... roof shingles
blown off..."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
data from U.S. Army Corps Eng., 1960
data from Cole, 1889

Island, most notably during the 1938 hurricane. During this
storm, the sand dunes behind the Dunes Club in Narragansett were
leveled and deposited into the Narrows and the Cove (U.S. Army
Corps, 1960). The sediment deposition that occurs during such
severe events can cause changes to an estuary not only by creat-
ing shoals such as now exist in the Narrows and Pettaquamscutt
Cove, but also by altering circulation patterns and the aquatic
habitat (Olsen and Lee, 1985).

3. The most threatening element associated with hurricanes is
the tidal surge. Surge heights, sometimes extending upwards to
25 feet above mean sea level, combined with forward speeds of 50
mph or greater, could cause immediate inundation of low lying
areas (Gordon, 1980). In the Narrow River, the general increase
in elevation, proceeding up the estuary, and the constricted
shallow nature of the river channel serve to slow the tidal surge
and, thus, to protect this area somewhat from the full force of
the tidal surge during severe hurricane events.

4. The 1938 and 1954 hurricanes, both arriving within one hour
of high tide, produced tidal flood levels of 13.8 and 12.8 feet,
respectively, indicating that tidal stage is another important
factor of storm events (U.S. Army Corps, 1960). On the west side
of Narrow River, in South Kingstown, the flood level during the
1938 hurricane extended across Middlebridge Road to the base of
"Torrey Hill" (Rosenbalm, 1986). During the hurricane of 1954,
tidal flood levels again reached across Middlebridge Road in
South Kingstown, and at least as far as South River Road in the
Mettatuxet area of Narragansett (Christensen, 1986). The hurri-
cane of 1944 arrived almost 2 hours before low tide and therefore
did not sustain flood levels as high as the other two storms
(U.S. Army Corps, 1960). Because much of the watershed is chara-
cterized by steep slopes, the amount of shoreline submerged
during severe hurricanes is not as great as would be for flat
low-lying areas.

5. Coastal winter storms, known as northeasters', are usually
large, cyclonic storms representing the same hazards present for
hurricanes with the exception of severe rainfall (Gordon, 1980).
Although waves from these storms are comparable to those of a
hurricane, wind speeds are lesser, usually gale force (40 mph and
greater). The cumulative effect of the storm's weaker components
can sometimes cause damages exceeding those of a hurricane because
of a greater duration at one location (Gordon, 1980). As with
hurricanes, the stage of the tide influences the reach of the ocean
and the resulting damages. These storms, occasionally driving
water levels 6 or 7 feet above mean sea level, have caused overtop-
ping of the seawall at Narragansett Pier, often inundating the
adjacent streets with water, sand, and rubble from the beach (U.S.
Army Corps, 1960).

112

510.3 Vulnerability of the Floodplain

A. Damages fom Past Storms

1. According to archives of the Narragansett Times, Middlebridge
bridge, constructed of wood, was swept away for the second time by
the storm surge (the first washout occurred during the "Great Gale
of 1815"). During a peak 2 hour period, the Great Atlantic Hurri-
cane of 1938 caused extensive destruction throughout the Rhode
Island coastal region, although actual damage estimates are not
available. Hurricane Carol in 1954 produced tidal flood losses
amounting to approximately $112,000 to 10 cottages and 2 commercial
establishments within the Middlebridge and Bridgetown sections of
Narrow River (U.S. Army Corps, 1960). Damage to docks and retain-
ing walls affected nearly 60 summer properties.

2. During the hurricanes of 1938 and 1954, the majority of houses
located within the Narrow River floodplain were limited to summer
residences. Today, while many of the dwellings are situated in the
same general area most are now year-round residences (Rosenbalm,
1986). Furthermore, during the 32 years which have passed since
the 1954 hurricane, many new houses have been built within this
high risk zone, most notably in Narragansett (Figure 5-3). Many
were built before the 1968 institution of the National Flood Insur-
ance Program and its updated standards for new and/or improved con-
struction. The mid-estuary region experienced the brunt of the
damages during the 1938 and 1954 hurricanes and may be expected to
receive similar, if not greater, damages in the next severe storm,
due primarily to the increase in residential property within the
floodplain.

3. Of particular concern when considering floodplain management is
the natural storage capacity of floodwaters afforded by the
estuary. Like many of the river systems within New England, the
Narrow River has extensive wetlands located throughout the estu-
arine system which function as flood abatement and water storage
areas for the watershed (Map 4). These wetlands, which include
approximately 350 acres of salt marsh immediately adjacent to the
lower reaches of the estuary, act as modifiers for the effects of
flooding by trapping and temporarily storing rainfall and surge
waters from major storms. During flood-ing events, water covers
the marsh in a broad sheet flow through the vegetation, attenuating
the effects of waves and flash flooding. Gradual release of flood-
waters from these areas reduce flood heights and the subsequent
damages (Burby and French, 1985). Also, shrubbery along the peri-
phery of marshes serve to buffer surrounding areas from high winds
associated with such events (Diaber, 1986). Alteration of these
natural flood abatement and storage areas diminishes the protection
afforded to the flood zone and the adjacent areas, thus increasing
damages associated with flood events (U.S. Armv Corps of Engineers,

113

2800 - *TOTAL WATERSHED
&NARRAGANSETT

VSOUTH KINGSTOWN
2400 - ONORTH KINGSTOWN

2000 -

0 1600 -
X

LL
0
CC 1200 -
III

Z 800 -

400 -

0 1940 f 1960 1980 2000
1954
HURRICANE YEAR

Figure 5-3. Trends in residential development within the watershed
since the last major hurricane (1954).

1960). Once lost, these areas cannot be regained, therefore, in
the undeveloped floodplains, preservation is a high priority and
strong protective measures should be implemented.

B. Potential Damages to the Developed Floodplain

1. Land values along the shoreline of the river, including those
susceptible to flooding, continue to command a high price; an
average home subject to flooding within the Middlebridge and
Mettatuxet areas is currently valued at more than $100,000. Within
the 100-year flood zone, major damages to homes and commercial
establishments can be expected from river flooding and wind-blown
debris. Damage estimates within this area could easily exceed the
million dollar mark. Public properties are also at risk and in-
clude roads, bridges, and water and sewer lines. Much of the
damage could be prevented if hurricane warnings are heeded early,
by securing boats and other loose objects. Wave induced effects
including boat and dock accumulation can be expected to occur along
the river edge. Because the area located in the high hazard zone

114

is small and does not include structures, it is expected that
damages here will be low.

2. Another factor associated with storm events is debris storage
and removal. As a result of the hurricanes in 1938 and 1954,
massive amounts of debris were accumulated along the coastal areas,
creating a major clean-up task (Olsen and Lee, 1984). Major roads
such as Tower Hill and Boston Neck Road, as well as local roads,
were literally impassable immediately after the storms (Narragan-
sett Times, 1938 and 1954). Scattered debris from structures,
automobiles, and other items were deposited during such storms into
Beach Pond and the surrounding Pier area (Narragansett Times,
1938). Because increased development and capacity constraints of
local landfills may make the removal and subsequent disposal more
problematic, sites for storage of debris and removal should be
established prior to the next major event.

3. Another factor to be considered in determining future flood
levels is the effects of rising sea level which is taking place
along the entire eastern seaboard. This phenomena and its conse-
quences are discussed in Chapter VI.

510.4 Storm Hazard Management

A. The National Flood Insurance Program

1. The character of current development within the Narrow River
watershed makes this area particularly susceptible to flooding
during major storm events. While actual damage estimates for this
area exist only for the hurricane of 1954, the level of sustained
damages that have occurred indicate a potential threat. The
National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which p.-ovides insurance
for flood prone property through the FEMA, was made available in
order to alleviate high financial burdens to individuals and local
and federal governments by combining flood damage protection with
land use/construction performance standards. This program, pro-
viding billions of dollars in coverage, has had a strong effect in
inducing communities to adopt policies and regulations to reduce
property losses from flooding (Burby and French, 1985). Unfortu-
nately, it has also had the effect of encouraging development
within vulnerable and high-risk flood zones.

2. All three towns encompassing the Narrow River participate in
the NFIP and utilize building codes in accordance with state and
federal standards. It remains highly controversial, however,
whether the seemingly beneficial financial provisions of the NFIP
outweigh the apparent increase in development, particularly within
sensitive coastal regions, which has occurred since its institution
(Gordon, 1980; Burby and French, 1985).

115

B. Coordination of Regulating Authorities

1. In the event that a serious hurricane or storm event impacts
Rhode Island, the FEMA regional office in Boston is in close con-
tact with the state throughout the disaster. Immediately after the
storm, initial damage assessments are determined by the local
official in each town and reported to the Governor's office. The
FEMA, in conjunction with the Governor's office, will survey and
designate those areas severely affected and help coordinate federal
disaster assistance programs. At this time, emergency crews will
remove debris from roads and begin essential repairs. Subse-
quently, emergency permits to rebuild in storm damaged areas may be
issued by local officials (Lee and Simpson, 1985).

2. Presently, the CRMC, mandated with setting policy and permit-
ting activities in the coastal zone, including debris removal and
replacement of public and private facilities, is not formally
linked to the state disaster response process (Lee and Simpson,
1985). Because the local officials are responsible for determining
the permits necessary for rebuilding, state and local coordination
prior to such an event is a critical factor. It is apparent that
the CRMC should be formally involved with the FEMA and the Gover-
norts emergency response procedure, which includes local officials,
to ensure that immediate intervention occur, thus preventing hap-
hazard redevelopment within the flood prone areas.

510.5 Summary

A. The Narrow River, as a coastal estuary, is particularly susce-ptible
to infrequent, yet damaging coastal storms and hurricanes. Damages from
such events are caused by high winds, heavy rains, tidal surge, and
consequent flooding. Steady growth within the floodplain of the river
has occurred over the past 40 years, with much development occurring
before the adoption of standard regulations for construction in the
flood-prone areas. While the National Flood Insurance Program has been
a major factor in establishing construction standards within these
zones, it has also served to provide an incentive for development.

B. Because the floodplain of the lower and middle regions of the
river has been developed, natural protective and mitigative barriers
have been lost, intensifying the likelihood of severe impacts. Dam-
ages which can be expected by storm events include structural losses,
as well as contaminant outflow from ISDS and leaching fields. Cur-
rently, there are no post-storm restoration policies at the state level
which address the reconstruction of areas that may be severely impacted
by the next major hurricane or storm event.

116

520. MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS AND INITIATIVES

Based on Section 510, Findings of Fact, and the goal to preserve
and protect the resources of the river, the following regulations and
initiatives are deemed necessary:

520.1 Construction Standards in Flood Zones

A. Construction in coastal high hazard flood zones (V zones), as de-
fined by federal flood insurance rate maps, shall follow the regulations
as listed in Section 300.3 of the CRMP, as amended.

B. Construction in areas of coastal stiilwater flood hazards (A zones),
as defined by flood insurance rate maps, shall follow the regulations as
listed in Section 300.3 of the CRMP, as amended.

C. Reconstruction After Storms

1. A CRMC assent is required of all persons proposing to main-
tain or rebuild shoreline structures which have been destroyed
50% or more by storms, tidal surges, or other natural processes
which may occur in the Narrow River watershed.

2. Structures shall be rebuilt according to the construction
standards required for the flood zone in which the structure is
located.

D. Post-Storm Restoration

A feasibility study is currently being performed for the CRMC to
determine the most efficient and effective approach for post-storm
restoration procedures. Upon adoption of the recommendations, ammend-
ments shall be made to this Special Area Management Plan where appli-
cable and deemed necessary.

E. Debris Removal And Disposal

1. Plans for debris removal and disposal which designate dispo-
sal sites for debris should be established, recognizing the
capacity constraints of local landfills and the prohibition of
debris in the wetlands. Temporary storage sites shall be identi-
fied and should be located conveniently near areas where large
amounts of debris are expected to accumulate. These sites should
be listed with local and state civil defense offices as part of
the coordination process.

2. Sites along the Narrow River that might be considered in-
clude:

117

(a) DEM boat launch @ Mitchell and River Court
(b) DOT scenic overlook/parking areas @ Sprague Bridge
(c) DOT commuter lot @ Tower Hill Road
(d) Narragansett Pier Town Beach parking lot

520.2 Controls For Protection of Flood Prone Areas

A. Flood Storage Areas

Wetlands which are significant in shielding flood-prone areas
from storm damage, particularly those salt marshes surrounding the
Cove and the lower reaches, are priorities for preservation in their
natural state as primary flood abatement and storage areas by utiliz-
ing such techniques as buffers zones, conservation easements, and/or
aquisition programs.

B. Coordination of Regulating Authorities

Upon occurrence of a damaging hurricane, the CRMC and the local
municipalities throughout the coastal region may be faced with a
workload of thousands of permits for private and public reconstruction
within the 100-year flood zones and possibly more within the adjacent
flood-prone areas. Regulatory policies should be established prior to
such an event to ensure that local emergency permits for reconstruc-
tion be coordinated with the CRMC permitting process.

Chapter Sixe
Impacts of
Planned and ]Future
Projects

;ti

. ..... . ... ........ . ... . .... ..

610. FINDINGS OF FACT

610.1 Dredging

A. History of Dredging in the Watershed

1. Dredging is the removal of submerged materials by hydraulic
or mechanical means to create or maintain waterways or to mine
material for fill, construction aggregate or other commercial
purposes. Regulation and permitting of dredging activities
throughout the United States is monitored by the Army Corps of
Engineers. The New England Division is responsible for those
projects which concern the Narrow River and has been requested
many times in the past, by local town officials and state legis-
lators, to perform feasibility studies for dredging some part of
the river. The first official request came in 1871, the latest
in 1971; no project has ever resulted.

2. Collapse of the majority of the project proposals came as a
result of lack of funding by the individual towns, a general wane
in public interest, and more recently, intense public opposition
as evidenced by the latest public hearing held by the Corps of
Engineers on May 27, 1971:

"proponents for improvement requested 20 foot wide channels
four feet deep throughout the area, and a rock jetty at the
entrance... others only wanted spot dredging to be done by the
local communities, a very large number of individuals stated
they were not in favor of any dredging ... others said they
wanted the study, but not the Corps of Engineers..."

3. The impetus behind the many requests for dredging projects
lies in the fact that the Narrow River is not amenable to heavy
boat traffic or verv large vessels. The Narrows, sinous in form,
is 150 feet (45 m) wide at mean high water, with depths ranging
from less than a foot (0.3 m) to approximately 8 feet (2.5 m).
Submerged boulders and rocks near the entrance can only be de-
tected at low tide. Currents in the Narrows are strong and
variable; the Corps of Engineers reports measurements of 2 to 5
knots (I to 2.5 m/s). The Cove region, although very wide, is
extremely shallow; navigation is restricted to the natural dis-
tributary channels during the flood stage of the tide. In the
central reach of the river, between Middlebridge Bridge and
Bridgetown Bridge, the width attains a maximum of only 60 feet
(20 meters), and depths average 3 feet (i meter). The two
bridges, with clearances less than 10 feet (3 meters) at mean low
water, prohibit sailing vessels and large craft from travelling
upriver.

121

B. Dredging Impacts

1. Economic gain is the principle incentive behind a large
number of dredging projects. Dredging for the purpose of mining,
creating channels, anchorages or marinas, are all expected to
yield financial benefits (LaRoe, 1977). It has only become
apparent in the past decade, with the realization that a rela-
tively small segment of the population truly benefits from dred-
ging activities, that the often irreplaceable loss of a worthy
public resource can be much greater than the anticipated revenue
from these proposed projects (LaRoe, 1977).

2. The adverse environmental impacts, both long and short term,
of dredging activity has been well-documented for many years.
The most catastrophic of all dredging impacts is the total obli-
teration of a specific area which has provided a habitat for a
species vital to the function of the ecosystem (Chapter IV).
Second in impact to the complete loss of habitat, is the actual
process of dredging, which disturbs and disperses large quan-
tities of sediment, often reaching far beyond the the project
boundaries. The resuspension of sediments increases turbididty
which degrades water quality and primary produtivity (Ingle,
1952; Kaplan, 1974). Sediment can settle and smother sea grass
beds and shellfish beds, clog the gills of fish, and alter the
character of the bottom substrate (Saila, et al., 1972; Carriker,
1967).

3. Estuarine sediments can act as a trap for a variety of pollu-
tants, nutrients, trace metals and pesticides, absorbing them
onto individual particles which settle and eventually are buried
with time. Dredging can resuspend these pollutants, again de-
grading water quality, and posing a severe threat to shellfish,
finfish, and other organisms. Reintroduction of nutrients can
increase productivity and trigger eutrophic conditions, resulting
in blooms and associated hazards (Biggs, 1968; Sabba Rao, 1973;
LaRoe, 1977). Resuspension of reduced (low oxygen) sediments can
alo deplete the ambient oxygen supply available to other organ-
isms (USACOE, 1973; LaRoe, 1977). Increased turbidity, resuspen-
sion of pollutants and decreased oxygen are all relatively short
term effects. Long term effects include changes in circulation,
flow, and flushing patterns, which can alter the salinity, dis-
solved oxygen level, temperature, and sediment and erosion pat-
terns, disturb habitats, wipe out non-motile species, and force
motile species to move to other regions.

4. Creating deeper channels, through dredging techniques, re-
duces the surface area of shallow substrates available for colo-
nization by light requiring SAV and algae. These species normal-
lv function as a food source to other organisms; SAV also pro-
vides valuable nursery and hatchery functions for fish and in-

122

E X E T E R

138
3 2 ......
R I C H M 0 N D
N 0 R T H

iA
95 . ......... 138
KINGSTOWN

138
@e%.
\.01 SOUTH
N
PROPOSED ACTION WASHINGTON COUNTY K I.:N GSTOWN 138

0 4000
UPGRADE EXISTING ROADWAY 2
...... ROADWAY ON NEW LOCATION 138
110 FEET

Figure 6-1. Planned alterations to Route 138. New construction and
upgrading extend from Route 1, in the Narrow River watershed,
to Interstate Highway 95 (From R I DOT, 1984).
K* 0 R T I
ING STC

0 W
SOUTH
K I.--
@@N GS T N
138
tj0

vertebrate species (Chapter IV).

5. The ecological impact of dredging vary from site to site
(Saila, 1980). Because the Narrow River is such a small, sensi-
tive estuary (Chapter III), it is generally thought that changes
wrought by dredging may have a more immediate and readily observ-
able impact than in a much larger estuary. The accumulation of a
series of stresses may result in a loss of biological productiv-
ity, diversity, and desirable or rare and endangered species
(Chapter IV); increase the amount of trash species and; ulti-
matley destroy the biological system (LaRoe, 1977).

610.2 Road and Bridge Alterations

A. Route 138 Extension

1. Much concern has focused on the planned extension of Route
138 westward from its present termination point in the northern
portion of the watershed. The extension will connect Route 138
to Route 2 in South Kingstown, creating a more direct path to
Interstate Route 95 (Figure 6-1). The plans for the extension
require new construction of a four-lane highway in the headwaters
region of the Narrow River. This poses several threats to the
watershed, primarily, increases in surface water runoff and as-
sociated roadway pollutants and the subsequent deterioration in
water quality. Hoffman and Quinn (1985) have found that road
runoff, transporting trace metals, oils, tar, gasoline, and sedi-
ment particles, is a major source of pollution to Narragansett
Bay. Further, salts applied during winter snow and ice storms
may also contaminate groundwater and freshwater ponds. Addi-
tional threats to the watershed include loss of critical habitat
and desirable wildlife species, and the high aesthetic and scenic
qualities of the region.

2. A final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has been issued
by the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (1984). How-
ever, several issues continue to generate questions of concern,
including the location of the groundwater recharge zone relative
to the extension, the nearness of a fragile plant community, and
the close proximity of the highway to Pendar Pond (one of several
ponds which discharge freshwater into the Narrow River) and the
related wetlands.

3. Figure 6-2 shows the location of the groundwater recharge
zone with the extension of Route 138 superimposed. Groundwater
recharge zones are important water resources, providing a surface
through which rainfall can percolate and "recharge" the aquifer,
ensuring an ample supply of water for the region (Wilson, 1977).
Figure 6-3 is the final plan of the proposed extension relative

124

1A LEGEND
138 - - - - - - SLOPE LIMITS

PROPOSED PAVEMENT EDGE
NARROW WETLAND BOUNDARIES
RIVER 138 PROPOSED CENTER LINE
1A

Ul N
138

SCALE

0 100 200 300 PENDAR
lioRIZONTAL
POND

0 20 40 60 80
VERTICAL

Figure 6-2. Location of the proposed construction of Route 138 rela-
tive to Pendar Pond (From R.I. DOT, 1984).

GROUNDWATER

RECHARGE AREA

GROUNDWATER
AQUIFER

100,

N. KINGSTOWN

Figure 6-3. Location of the groundwater recharge and aquifer in the
headwaters region with Route 138 superimposed. Solid line
indicates existing road; dashed line represents planned
extension (Johnson and Marks, 1959).

126

to Pendar Pond. The highway edge is less than 100 feet from
Pendar Pond. Chapter III, Section 310.5, discusses the impor-
tance of maintaining an adequate buffer width between upland
construction projects and receiving water bodies. The proximity
of the road to the pond raises serious concerns and suggests that
adequate mitigative techniques be employed to ensure that adverse
impacts are avoided.

5. The wetland through which the extension traverses supports a
small stand of ferns, composed of approximately twelve different
species. This stand, referred to as Fern Glen, is considered
unusually diverse and productive, and is included in a survey of
significant open space sites by the Audubon Society of Rhode
Island (1983). Although, none of the species which compose Fern
Glen are rare or endangered, the concentration of all of these
species in a single stand is a noted feature of the region.
Unfortunately, just consideration is not given to unique areas,
and thus, this irreplaceable amenity is imminently threatened.

B. Route 1A (Boston Neck Road) Project

1. Route 1A coincides with the eastern boundary of the water-
shed. It follows the top of the eastern ridgeline, from which
drainage to the west ultimately enters the Narrow River. This
road, one of the major roads within the town of Narragansett, is
currently a two lane heavily travelled .. page break for figure
6-2 corrider, which provides access from the northern urban areas
to the coastal communities and beaches.

2. This road is slated for rehabilitative work by the Rhode
Island Department of Transportation, and specifically requires
structural and planned drainage, where none presently exists.
The original DOT proposal called for utilization of drainage
pipes located near the road and currently in use by the local
neighborhoods (Collins, 1986). The increased volume of surface
water runoff, the potential increase in the amount of pollutants
entering the river, and other associated negative effects (Chap-
ter III) could have seriously countered the effective restoration
of water quality.

3. However, consideration of the adverse impacts on the Narrow
River, has led to modifications to the proposal, reducing the
amount of runoff to the watershed (Brown, 1986; Narragansett
TImes, 1986). The intergovernmental consultation process which
led to the modification and incorporation of water quality con-
cerns, exemplifies how major projects should be assessed. Cumu-
lative and direct impacts to the natural processes of the water-
shed, and implementation of mitigative techniques must be consid-
ered and evaluated at the beginning of major projects, cognizant
of the various interests involved.

127

C. Bridge Alteration and Reconstruction

1. Several bridges and causeways have been constructed, or
reconstructed, along the Narrow River over the past several
hundred years. The bridge at Middlebridge has been the subject
of many debates regarding its potential effects on the hydrodyna-
mics of the river. This bridge, last reconstructed in 1954,
consists of a filled causeway with a short span (Gaines, 1975).
The causeway, extends outward into the river, forcing an unnatu-
ral constriction in the river width. This constriction decreases
the cross sectional area through which the water flows, subse-
quently, increasing the velocity of the current. Deflation fea-
tures (delta-like sand bars) can be observed on either side of
the bridge where the currents slow, dropping the sediment load
picked up at faster velocities.
i
2. Suggestions have been made regarding reconstruction of the
bridge, particularly, the elimination of the causeways which
extend into the river. It is believed that doing so would help
the flushing character of the river and alleviate the water
quality problems which have prevailed over the years. However,
reconstruction of the bridge could have more complex consequences
than anticipated and may not be the solution to water quality
concern. Increasing the cross-sectional area, by removal of the
causeway, will only serve to decrease the current speeds in the
immediate vicinity. The net flushing from the river may not
change at all, since these rates are primarily a function of the
influx of water to the system.

610.3 Sea Level Rise

A. Gasses, such as carbon dioxide, chloroflourocarbons and methane,
which reside in the atmosphere, absorb much of the sun's infrared
radiation. These gasses, warmed by radiation, radiate energy back to
the earth, thus raising its temperature. The larger the percentage of
infrared radiation blocked by the atmosphere, the warmer the earth's
surface temperature. As the gas content of the atmosphere continues
to increase, "the greenhouse effect" (Charney, et al., 1979; Keeling,
Bacastow, and Whorf, 1982) of global warming will continue. As tem-
peratures rise, thermal expansion of sea water, melting of mountain
glaciers, and meltwater runoff from Antarctica will cause sea level to
rise (Hoffman, et al., 1983; Meier, 1984; Revelle, 1983; Thomas,
1985). The anticipated rise in sea level is expected to be between
4.8 feet (144 cm) and 7 feet (217 cm) by the year 2100 (Hoffman, et
al., 1983). Along the east coast of the United States, this rise is
expected to be slightly higher due to local subsidence (Hoffman, et
al., 1983).

B. The rise in sea level is expected to produce a variety of adverse

128

impacts. As seawater encroaches on the coastline, beaches and coastal
marshes will be lost due to increased erosion and innundation; flood-
ing problems will increase, particularly as vulnerable inland areas
are approached; freshwater marshes will be lost; and saltwater intru-
sions will extend further inland, possibly contaminating groundwater
aquifers and private wells. Many communities are ignoring these
potential impacts by continuing to build in coastal flood prone areas
and near marshlands (Titus, et al., 1984). It is possible, through
adequate planning and timely decisions, to alleviate adverse impacts
of sea level rise (Hoffman, et al., 1983).

C. In the Narrow River watershed, the implications of rising sea
level need to be more fully understood before preventive measures can
be undertaken. Information gained from archeological excavations have
demonstrated that the Narrow River is dissimilar from other estuaries
located along the Atlantic Coast. Because of its right angle morphol-
ogy relative to the ocean, and its steepening slope in the northward
direction, transgression of the sea was severely curtailed (Cox, et
al., 1983). Figure 6-4 shows the extent of sea level rise horizontal-
ly along the Narrow River and the Taunton River, an estuary considered
typical of southern New England. The Taunton River lost 23 kilometers
of its ength, whereas, the Narrow River only lost 3.5 kilometers in
the very final stages of the last marine transgression (Cox, et al,
1983). Gaines (1975), however, states that there may have been a
possible increase in the surface area of the upper basins as a result
of rising sea level, suggesting a greater impact.

610.4 Summary

Several potential future projects and events exist which threaten
to adversly impact the Narrow River watershed. These include dredging
and disposal activities, construction and reconstruction of several
roads and highways, alteration of existing bridges and the rise in sea
level. The projected outcome of these projects could result in catas-
trophic and irreversible losses of a valuable resource to the sur-
rounding communities. The vulnerability of the Narrow River has been
well documented in the preceeding chapters. Hasty decisions and lack
of anticipation of future impacts could expose the Narrow River to
unwarranted degradation.

129

LENGTH OF DROWNED RIVER VALLEY

20 0 TAUNTON RIVER
0 NARROW RIVER
E 16
-@e
Lj
0 12
z

co 8

04.
0 2 4 6 8

YEARS BEFORE PRESENT, thousands

Figure 6-4. Comparison of the length of river basin drowned by the
rise in sea level in two southern Rhode Island Rivers
(Cox, et al., 1983).

130

620. MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS AND INITIATIVES

A. Structural and Mechanical Alterations

1. Dredging and disposal activities are prohibited in the Narrow
River watershed in accordance with Section 420.1D.

2. Major road, highway, and bridge projects within the watershed
should be reviewed by the CRMC to assess direct and cumulative
impacts on coastal resources.

B. Areas with Special Consideration

1. All structural and mechanical alterations proposed within the
watershed should include in their environmental considerations
the aesthetic value of the region.

?, Efforts should be made to incorporate consideration of areas
or resources judged to be significant by organizations other than
state agencies.

C. Future Research

1. It is recommended that before any action be performed on
alterations to Middlebridge Bridge that a feasibility study be
undertaken to determine the potential environmental impact.

2. A study should be conducted which would consider the poten-
tial future impacts on the Narrow River Watershed from the pre-
dicted rise in sea level.

131

References

Chapter I: Introduction

Gaines, A.G., 1975. Papers on the Geomorphology, Hydrography and
Geochemistry of the Pettaquamscutt River Estuary. Ph.D. Thesis,
URI.

Rebach, S., 1970. Orientation and movement of the hermit crab Pagurus
longicarpus. PhD. Thesis, URI.

RIHPC (Rhode Island Historical Preservation Commission), 1983. An
Archaeological Assessment Survey Of The Pettaquamscutt River
Basin. Providence, R.I. 60 pp.

River Landscapes, 1976. A Plan for the Narrow River Watershed, by
Moriece and Gary, Inc. and Roy Mann Associates, Inc. submitted to
the Tri-town Narrow River Planning Committee. 74 pp.

PHS (Pettaquamscutt Historical Society), 1963. Ships, Sailors and
Seaports. Kingston, R.I. pp 5-39.

Chapter II: Framework of Management

Olsen, S., and V. Lee, 1984. The Salt Ponds Region Special Area
Management Plan, URI Coastal Resources Center, 113 pp.

Chapter III: Water Quality

Andreoli, A. et al, 1979. Nitrogen Removal in a Subsurface Disposal
System. J. of Water Poll. Con. Fed, 51:841-855.

Canter, L.W. and R.C. Knox, 1985. Septic tank system effects on
groundwater quality. Lewis Publishers, Inc. 335 pp.

Carlile, B.L., Stewart, L. W. and M.D. Sobsey, 1977. Status of
Alternative Systems for Septic Wastes Disposal in North Carolina.
Proceedings of 2nd Annual Illinois Private Sewage Disposal
Symposium.

Clark, J., 1977. Coastal Ecosystems: Ecological Considerations for Manage-
ment of the Coastal Zone (2nd Edition). Conservation Foundation,
Washington, D.C., 161 pp.

Collins, C., 1985. Extension of the Salt Pond Special Area Management
Plan to Quonochontaug Pond and its Watershed. Draft Report.

Collins, C., 1986. Mettatuxet Sewer Issue Memo to Town Manager of
Narragansett. 2 pp.

135

CRMC (Coastal Resources Management Council), 1986. Coastal Resources
Management Council, Public Hearing, March 20, 1986. SNJ Associates,
File No. 84-11-12, 114 pp.

Durbin, A.G., Nixon, S.W. and C.A. Oviatt, 1979. Effects of the spawning
migration of the alewife, Alosa psuedoharangus, on freshwater eco-
svstems. Ecology 60: 8-12.

Enser, R., 1986. Written communication, 5 pp.

EPA, 1983. Chesapeake Bay: A Framework for Action. Government
Printing Office., Washington, DC. 186 pp.

EPA, 1982. Chesapeake Bay Program Technical Studies: A Synthesis.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 635 pp.

EPA, 1976. Qualitv Criteria for Water. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC. 256 pp.

Gaines, A.G., 1975. Papers on the Geomorphology, Hydrography and
Geochemistry of the Pettaquamscutt River Estuary. Ph.D. Thesis,
URI.

Gaines, A.G., Jr. and M.E.Q. Pilson. Anoxic Water in the
Pettaquamscutt River. Limnol. Oceanogr. 17(l), pp. 42-49.

Goldberg, E.D., Gamble, E., Griffen, G.G. and M. Loide, 1977.
Pollution History of Narragansett Bay as Recorded in its
Sediments. Estuarine and Coastal Mar. Sci. 5:549-561.

Golet, F., 1986. Personal communication.

Grace, J., 1981. Freshwater Input to Coastal Ponds. R.eport to Univ.
of R.I. Coastal Resources Center.

Gschwend, P.M. and R.A. Hites, 1981. Fluxes of Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons to Marine and Lacustrine Sediments in the
Northeastern United States. Geochim. et Cosomochim.
45:2359-2367.

Hagedorn, C. et al, 1978. Survival and Movement of Fecal Indicator
Bacteria in Soil Under Conditions of Saturated Flow. J. of Env.
Qual. 7:55-59.

Hanisak, S.D. 1973. An Ecological Survey of the Phytoplankton of the
Pettaquamscutt River, R.I. M.S. Thesis, URI, 140 pp.

Hargraves, P., 1986a. Written communication, August 7, 2 pp.

136

Hargraves, P., 1986b. Written communication, November 6, 1 p.

Hargraves, P., 1974. Coliform Bacteria Study of the Dunes Club.
Unpubl. report for The Dunes Club, Narragansett R.I., 14 pp.

Hargraves, P., 1972. Memo to R.I. Department of Natural Resources, Chief
Replinger, August 1, 14 pp.

Hicks, S.D., 1958. Distribution of Salinity. Pettaquamscutt River
Investigation. T.J. Wright, ed., 4 pp.

Hites, R.A., LaFlamme, R.E., Windsor, J.G., Farrington, J.W. and W.G.
Deuser, 1980. Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in an Anoxic
Sediment Core from the Pettaquamscutt River. Geochimica et
Cosmoshimica Acta, 44(6), p. 873-878.

Hoffman, E. and J. Quinn, 1985. Measuring Sources of Pollution in
Narragansett Bay. Maritimes, 29:4-7.

Horton, D., 1958. The Distribution of Fishes in the Upper
Pettaquamscutt River. M.S. Thesis, URI, 85 pp.

Horton, D.B., 1958. Distribution of Salinities in the Upper
Pettaquamscutt River. R.I. Division of Fish and Game, 2 pp.

Johnson, K.E. and L.Y. Marks, 1959. USGS GWM 1, Wickford Quadrangle.

Jones, E.E., 1978. Improving Subsurface Disposal System Performance.
Jour. Env. Health, 40:186-191.

Karr, J. and I. Schlosser, 1977. Impact of nearstream vegetation and stream
morphology on water quality and stream biota. U.S. EPA Doc. no. 600/3-
77-097.

Koppleman, L., 1978. The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment
Management Plan, Vol. I and II. Nassau Suffolk Regional Planning
Board. Hauppauge, N.Y., 304 pp.

Lambiase, J.J., 1972. Distribution and Movement of Sediments in the
Narrows of the Pettaquamscutt River, Narragansett, Rhode Island.
M.S. Thesis, URI, Geology Dept., 135 pp.

Lee, V., 1986. Personal communication.

McMaster, R.L., 1958. Distribution of Bottom Sediments.
Pettaquamscutt River Investigation. R.I. Division Fish & Game.
T.J. Wright, ed., 3 pp.

Miller, B.T., 1972. The Phytoplankton and Related Hydrography in the

137

South Basin of the Pettaquamscutt River. M.S. Thesis, URI,
119 pp.

NRPA (Narrow River Preservation Association), 1970. Evaluation of the Tower
Hill Site and some surrounding environmental conditions pertinent to
the restaurant and/or motel project. Saunderstown, RI., 14 pp.

Nixon, S.W., Furnas, R. Chinman, S. Granger and S. Hefferman,
1982. Nutrient Inputs to Rhode Island Coastal Lagoons and Salt
Ponds. Final Report to R.I. Statewide Planning, 30 pp.

Olsen, S., and V. Lee, 1984. The Salt Ponds Region Special Area
Management Plan, URI Coastal Resources Center, 113 pp.

Olsen, S., V. Lee and C. Collins, 1982. Recommended Measures to
Maintain and Protect the Qualities of South Kingstown's Salt Pond
Region, URI Coastal Resources Center.

Palfrey, R. and E. Bradley, 1981. Natural Buffers Area Study. Maryland
Dept. of Natural Resources, 29 pp.

Petruny-Parker, M.E., 1986. Information on Bacteria Levels in the
Narrow River and Failing Individual Septic Disposal Systems in the
Area. A report submitted to A. Prager, J. Mannarino and C.
Collins. 92 pp.

Repasz, C.J. and P. Hargraves, 1974. Coliform Study of Pettaquamscutt
River, June-September 1974. Unpublished report, 22 pp.

Requejo, A.G., J.G. Quinn, J.N. Gearing and P.J. Gearing, 1984. C25
and C30 Biogenic Alkenes in a Sediment Core from the Upper
Anoxic Basin of the Pettaquamscutt River (Rhode Island, USA).
Org. Chem. 7:1-10.

R.I. DOH (Department of Health), 1974. Division of Water Supply and Pollu-
tion Control, Shoreline Survey - Pettaquamscutt River, 28 and 29
August, 13 pp.

R.I. DOH, 1975. Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control, Shoreline
Survey - Growing Area - Pettaquamscutt River, West Shore of Pettaquam-
scutt River and Tributaries: 20,21, and 23 May, 4 pp.

R.I. DEM (Department of Environmental Management), 1979. Division of Water
Resources, Pettaquamscutt River Survey: 24 September 1979 - 25 June
1982, 34 pp.

R.I. DEM, 1979. Division of Water Resources, Shoreline Survey and Shore
Sampling of the Pettaquamscutt River: 4,5, and 13 September, PP.

RIHPC (Rhode Island Historical Preservation Commission), 1986. The Rhode

138

Island Historic Preservation Plan, Providence, RI, 86 pp.

RIPE, Inc. (Rhode Island Projects for the Environment), 1980.
Pettaquamscutt River Individual Sewage Disposal Systems Study, by
J. Riendeau. Government Center., Wakefield, R.I., 35 pp.

River Landscapes, 1976. A Plan for the Narrow River Watershed,
Moriece and Gary, Inc. and Roy Mann Associates, Inc. submitted to
the Tri-town Narrow River Planning Committee. 74 pp.

Rodgers, J., Syz, S. and F. Golden, 1976. Maryland Uplands Natural Area
Study, A report submitted by Rodgers and Golden, Inc. to the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources, 74 pp.

Sculf, M.R., W.J. Dunlap and J.F. Kreissel, 1977. Environmental
Effects of Septic Tank Systems. Report No. EPA/600/3-77-096.
R.S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory, US EPA, Oklahoma.

Schafer, J.P., 1961. Surficial Geology of the Wickford Quadrangle,
R.I., USGS Geological Quadrangle Map GQ-136.

Schafer, J.P., 1961. Surficial Geology of the Narragansett Pier
Quadrangle, R.I., USGS Geological Quadrangle Map GQ-140. -

Sidle, R.C., Pearce, A.J., and C.L. O'Loughlin, 1985. Hillslope
stability and land use. American Geophysical Union, Washington,
D.C., 140 pp.

Sieberth, J., 1983. Water Quality of the Narrow River 1959-1979.
Narrow River Preservation Association, 31 pp.

Smullen, J.T., 1979. A Single Empirical Model of Runoff Pollution
for Environmental Planning. M.S. Thesis, Rutgers University, N.J.

Smullen, J.T., Hartigan, J.P., and T.J. Grizzard, 1978. Assessment of
Runoff Pollution in Coastal Watersheds. In: Coastal Zone '78, A
Symposium on the Technical Environmental Socio-Economic and
Regulatory Aspects of Coastal Zone Management. American Society
Civil Engineers, N.Y. pp. 840-857.

U.S.G.S. (United States Geological Survey), 1962. Surface Water
Records of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont,
188 pp.

U.S.G.S., 1963. Surface Water Records of Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont, 228 pp.

U.S.G.S., 1964. Surface Water Records of Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
Rhode Island, Vermont, 239 pp.

139

Wilson, J., 1977. Ground Water: A Non-Technical Primer. Academy of
Sciences. Philadelphia, PA, 105 pp.

Wright, T.J., ed. 1058. Pettaquamscutt River Investigation. R.I.
Division of Fish and Game and Narragansett Marine Laboratory,
24 pp.

Wright, T.J., V.I. Cheadle, and E.A. Palmatiere, 1949. Survey of
Rhode Island's Salt and Brackish Water Ponds and Marshes. R.I.
Division of Fish and Game, Pamphlet No. 2.

Wong, S.L. and R.H. McCuen, 1981. Design of vegetative buffer strips for
runoff and sediment control. University of Maryland, College Park.

Chapter IV: Critical Habitat

Bengston D.A., 1982. Resource partitioning by Menidia menidia (L.)
and Menidia beryllinia (Cope) in Two Rhode Island Estuaries.
PhD. Dissertation, URI, 214 pp.

Bond, G. W., 1968. Breeding cycle and maturation of the sticklebacks,
Apeltes quadracus (Mitchilli), Gasterosteus aculeatus (Linnaeus)
and Pungitius pungitius (Linnaeus), in two Rhode Island estu-
aries, M.S. Thesis,, URI, 55 pp.

Burgess, G.H., 1971. A Spring Survey of the Fish of the Lower Petta-
quamscutt River. Unpublished paper, URI Dept. of Zoology, 20 pp.

Campbell, 1958. Shellfish survey of the Pettaquamscutt River.
Wright, T.J. (ed.) Pettaquamscutt River Investigation, Division
of Fish and Game and Narragansett Marine Laboratory, 10 pp.

Clark, J., 1977. Coastal Ecosystems: Ecological Considerations for
Management of the Coastal Zone (2nd Edition). Conservation
Foundation, Washington, D.C., 161 pp.

Cooper, R.A., 1961. Early life history and spawning migration of the
alewife, Alosd psuedoharangus. M.S. Thesis, URI, 134 pp.

Cronan, B., 1986. Personal communication.

Daiber, F.C., 1986. Conservation of Tidal Marshes. Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co., New York, 341 pp.

Darnell, R.M., 1978. Overview of major development impacts on wet-
lands, In: National Wetland Protection Symposium Fish & Wildlife
Serv. Biol. Serv. Prog. Proc., Montanari J.H. and J.A. Kusler
(eds.). FWS/OBS-78/97, Washington, D.C., pp.29-36.

140

Durbin, A.G.; Nixon, S.W. and C.A. Oviatt, 1979. Effects of the
spawning migration of the Alewife, Alosa psuedoharangus, on
freshwater ecosystems. Ecology 60:T,-pp. 8-12.

Enser, R., 1986. Written communication.

Gorden, B.L., 1960. The Marine Fishes of Rhode Island. Book & Tackle
Shop, Watch Hill, RI. 136pp.

Gould, W.P., 1986. Written communication.

Guthrie, R. and J. Stolgitis, 1977. Fisheries Investigations and
Management in Rhode Island Lakes and Ponds. RI Dept. of Natural
Resources, Div. of Fish & Wildlife, Fisheries Report No. 3.,, 256
PP.

Hanisack, D., 1973. An ecological survey of the phytoplankton of the
Pettaquamscutt River, R.I. M.S. Thesis, URI, 140 pp.

Hazard, T.R., 1915. The Jonny-Cake Papers of "Sheperd Tom". The
Merrymount Press, Boston, 430 pp.

Horton, D., 1958. The Distribution of Fishes in the Upper Pettaquam-
scutt River. M.S. Thesis, URI, 85 pp.

Husband, T.P., 1986. Personal communication.

Kenenski, 1., 1986. Aerial photo interpretations, unpublished data
for CRMC.

Kusler, J.A., 1980. Regulating Sensitve Lands: A Guidebook. Environ-
mental Law Institute, Washington, D.C., 248 pp.

Kusler, J.A. and C. Harwood, 1977. Wetlands Protection: A Guidebook
for Local Government. Environmental Law Institutel Washington,
D.C.

Miller, B.T., 1972. The phytoplankton and related hydrography in the
South Basin of the Pettaquamscutt River. M.S. Thesis, URI, 119
PP.

Mulkana, M.S., 1964. The Growth and Feeding Habits of Juvenile Fishes
in Two Rhode Island estuaries. M.S. Thesis, URI.

Narragansett Times, 1986. Coyote: a problem in North Kingstown.
September 12.

Neiring, W.A. and R.S. Warren, 1977. Salt Marshes. In: Clarke, J.
(ed.) Coastal Ecosystem Management: A Technical Manual for the

141

Conservation of Coastal Zone Resources. The Conservation Founda-
tion, M.N., pp. 697-701.

Neiring, W.A., 1978. Wetland values, In: National Wetland Protection
Symposium Fish & Wildlife Serv. BIol. Serv. Prog. Proc.,
Montanari J.H. and J.A. Kusler (eds.). FWS/OBS-78/97,
Washington, D.C., pp. 29-36.

Nixon, S. and C.D. Oviatt, 1973. Ecology of a New England Salt Marsh.
Ecological Monographs, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 463-498.

O'Brien, J.F., 1977. Investigations of the Striped Bass, Morone
saxatilis (Walbaum). Overwintering in the Upper Pettaquamscutt
Estuary. M.S. Thesis, URI.

Odum, E.P., 1961. The role of tidal marshes in estuarine production,
N.Y. State Conserv. 16:12-15, 35.

O'Keefe, M., 1972. A Spring Survey of the Fish Population of the
Pettaquamscutt River. Unpublished paper, URI Dept. of Zoology.

.Olsen, S. and G.L. Seavy, 1983. State of Rhode Island Coastal
Resources Management Program. Coastal Resources Management
Council, Providence, RI, 121 pp.

Pelligrino, P.E., and A.T. Carroll, 1974. The distribution of invert-
ebrates in Connecticut salt marshes. In: Neiring W.A and R.S.
Warren (eds.), Tidal Wetlands of Connecticut: Vegetation and
Associated Animal Populations, Vol. 1. State of Connecticut,
Dept. of Environmental Protection and Bureau of Sports, Fisheries
and Wildlife. US Dept of the Interior, Washington, D.C.

Pierce, R.J., 1977. Wetlands plants of the Eastern United States.
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, North Atlantic Division, New York,
101 pp.

Porter, B.W., 1981. The wetland edge as a community and its value to
wildlife. In: Richardson, B. (ed.), Selected Proceedings of the
Midwest Conference on Wetlands Values and Management. Freshwater
Society, M.N., 660 pp.

Roman, C.T. and R.E. Good, 1983. Wetlands of the New Jersey Pine-
lands: Values, Function, Impacts, and A Proposed Buffer De-
lineation Model. Rutgers, State University of New Jersey, 123
PP.

Seavy, G.L., 1975. Rhode Island's Coastal Natural Areas, Priorities
for Protection. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode
Island, pp 40.

142

Shisler, J.K., Waidelich, P.E., Russell, H.G., and R.A. Jordan, 1985.
Coastal Wetlands: Wetlands Buffer Delineation Study, Task 1.
Mosquito Research and Control, Rutger University, NJ, 50 pp.

Tiner, R.W., 1985. Wetlands of New Jersey. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Newton Corner, MA, 117 pp.

Vargo, S.L., 1974. Seasonal and vertical distribution of the zoo-
plankton in an estuarine anoxic basin and their tolerances to
hydrogen sulfide and dissolved oxygen. PhD. Dissertation, URI,
141 pp.

Wood, E.J.F., Odum, W.E., and J.C. Zeimann, 1969. Influence of sea-
grasses on the productivity of coastal lagoons. Mem. Simp.
Intern. Lagunas Costeras. UNAM-UNESCO, pp. 459-502.

Wright, T.J., Cheadle, V.I., and E.A. Palmatiere, 1949. Survey of
Rhode Island's salt and brackish water ponds and marshes. R.I.
Division of Fish and Game, Pamphlet No. 2., 200 pp.

Zeimann, J.C., 1977. Seagrass Beds. In: Clark, J. (ed.), Coastal
Ecosystems: Ecological Considerations for Management of the
Coastal Zone. Conservation Foundation, Washington, D.C., pp.
702-704.

Chapter V: Flood and Storm Hazards

Burby, R.J., French,S.P., Cigler, B.A., Kaiser, E.J., Moreau, D.H. and
B. Stiftel, 1985. Flood Plain Land Use Management: A National
Assessment. Studies in Water Policy and Management, No. 5,
Westview Press, 249pp.

Christensen, C., 1986. Personal communication.

Cole, J., 1889. History of Washington and Kent Counties. W.W.
Preston and Company, New York, 1344 pp.

Diaber, F.C., 1986. Conservation of Tidal Marshes. Van Nostrand
Reinhold Company, New York, 341pp.

F.I.A.C. (Federal Interagency Advisory Committee), Hydrology Subcom-
mittee, 1985. Guidelines on Community Local Flood Warning and
Response Systems, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C., 104pp.

Gordon, W.R., 1980. The Perception of Storm Hazard of Selected Rhode
Island Barrier Beach Inhabitants. M.S. Thesis, U.R.I., 193pp.

Keller, E.A., 1975. Environmental Geology. Charles E. Merrill Pub-

143

lishing Co., Columbus, Ohio.

Kusler, J., 1980. Regulating Sensitive Lands: A Guidebook. Environ-
mental Law Institute, Washington, D.C., 248pp.

Lee, V., 1979. An Elusive Compromise: Rhode Island Coastal Ponds and
Their People. URI Marine Technical Report 73, 82pp.

Lee, V. and T. Simpson, 1985. Post Storm Restoration Planning for
R.I. Salt Pond Region. Report submitted to the RI Coastal Re-
sources Management Council and the Office of Coastal Zone Manage-
ment, Washington, D.C.

Lewis, S., 1986. Personal communication.

Narragansett Times, 1858-1985. Archives.

New England River Basins Commission, Task Force On Flood Plain Manage-
ment, 1977. New England Perspective on Floodplain Management,
Vol. II: Assessment of Flood Plain Management Activities in
New England, (Draft).

Olsen, S. and V. Lee, 1984 Rhode Island's Salt Pond Region: A Special
Area Management Plan. Coastal Resources Management Council,
Providence, R.I. 113 pp.

R.I. Office of Statewide Planning, 1984. The National Flood Insurance
Program: A Handbook For Rhode Island Communities.

Rosenbaum, V., 1986. Personal communication.

Thurow, C., Toner, W. and D. Erley, 1975. Performance Controls For
Sensitive Lands: A Practical Guide For Local Administrators,
Parts I and 2. U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C., 156pp.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1960. Hurricane Survey Interim Report,
Narragansett Pier.

Chapter VI: Impacts of Planned and Future Projects

Audubon Society of Rhode Island, 1983. Open space Preservation Inven-
tory of Significant Sites, Providence, RI.

Barta, M. and J. Titus, eds., 1984. Greenhouse Effect and Sea Level
Rise, A Challenge for This Generation. Van Nostrand Reinhold,
NY. pp. 253-269.

Biggs, R.B., 1968. Environmental Effects of Overboard Spoil Disposal.

144

Journal of Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 94, pp 477-
487.

Carriker, M.R., 1967. Ecology of Estuarine Benthic Invertebrates: A
Perspective. In Lauff, G.H., (ed.) Estuaries. American Associa-
tion for the Advancement of Science. Pub. No. 83. Washington,
D.C. pp.442-487.

Cox, D.C., Thorbahn, P.F. and A. Leveillee, 1983. An Archaeologic
Assessment Survey of the Pettaquamscutt River Basin, The Public
Archaeological Lab, Inc. Providence, RI. 84 pp.

Gaines, A. 1975. Papers on the Geomorphology, Geology, and Hydrology
of the Pettaquamsutt River. Phd dissertation. URI.

Hoffman, J.S., Quinn, 1985. Mapping the Source of Pollution in
Narragansett Bay. URI Maritimes Vol 29, No. 1, p.4-8.

Hoffman, J.S., Keyes, D. and J.G. Titus, 1983. Projection of Future
Sea Level Rise. Methodology, Estimates to the year 2100 and
Research Needs. EPA 230-09-007, 121 pp.

Hull, C.H.J. and J.G. Titus, 1986. Greenhouse Effect, Sea Level Rise
and Salinity in the Delaware Estuary. EPA 230-05-86-010, 86 pp.

Ingle, R.M., 1952. Studies on the Effect of Dredging Operations Upon
Fish and Shellfish. Technical Survey No. 5. Florida State Board
of Conservation, St. Petersburg, 26 pp.

Kaplan, E.H., Welker, J.R. and M.G. Kraus, 1974. Some Effects of
Dredging on Population of Macrobenthic Organisms. U.S. National
Marine Fisheries Service, Fishery Bulletin, 72(2): 445-480.

LaRoe, 1977. Ecological Impacts of Dredging in Clarke J. (ed) Coastal
Ecosystem Management. The Conservation Society, Washington, D.C.

New England Division, Army Corps of Engineers, 1949. Narragansett
Bay at the mouth of Narrow River, Narragansett, Rhode Island
Survey. Department of the Army, Washington, D.C. 14 pp.

New England Division, Army Corps of Engineers, 1960. Hurricane Sur-
vey, Interim Report, Narragansett Pier, RI. Appendices, 127 pp.

New England Division, Army Corps of Engineers, 1971. Narrow River,
Narragansett, South Kingstown, and North Kingstown, Rhode Island.
Review of Reports. Department of the Army, Washington, D.C.
10 pp.

Rhode Island Department of Transportation, 1984. Final Environmental
Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Statement, Interstate Route I-

145

895. Federal Highway Administration, Report No. FHWA-RI/MA-EIS-
79-01-F.

Rhonds, D.C., McCall, P.L. and J.Y. Yingst, 1978. Disturbance and
Production on the Estuarine Seafloor. American Scientist, 66(5):
577-586.

Sabba Rao, D.V., 1975. Effects of Environmental Pertebations on
Short-Term Phytoplankton Production Off Lawson's Bay, A Tropical
Coastal Embayment. Hydrobiologia, Vol. 43, Nos: I & 2, pp 77-91.

Saila, S.B., 1980. Estuarine Fishery Resource and Physical Estuarine
Modifications: Some Suggestions for Impact Assessment. In:
Hamilton, Paul and K.B. MacDonald (eds) Estuarine and Wetland
Processes. Plenun Pub. Corp., NY, pp 603-628.

Saila, S.B., Pratt, S.D. and T.T. Polger, 1972. Dredge Spoil Disposal
in Rhode Island Sound. URI Marine Tech. Report, No. 2, 48 pp.

Titus, J.G., 1984. Planning for Sea Level Rise Before and After a
Coastal Disaster.

Wilson, J., 1977. Groundwater, A Non-technical Primer. Academy of
Science, Philadelphia, PA, 105 pp.

146

Appendi X

APPENDIX A
Watershed Maps

The following maps are meant to serve as general guidelines for
describing the character of the Narrow River watershed. All
information is subject to field confirmation by CRMC staff for
regulatory purposes.

MAP 2 EXISTING LAND USE

NORTH KINGSTOWN
NARRAGANSETT

SOUTH KINGSTOWN

DEVELOPED LAND

-EDIU. DE..IT@ 11

E] r..ER.IAL I I.DU.T.IAL

PUBLIC LAND

OPEN LAND

DWELLING UNIT If

CON86RVArONIRrrREAr,.@
(PUBLIC & PRIVATE)

UN.EVEIOPED PRIVATE LAN.
If
PR.P..E. ...DIVI.I.. 64

...........

-3

MAP 3 STORM DRAIN OUTFALLS

OL?

A
Ae

NORTH KINGSTOWN
/NARRAGANSETT

SOUTH KINGSTOWN

IIIf

MAP 4 WETLANDS

.% ap

NORTH KINGSTOWN
/NARRAGANSETT

SOUTH KINGSTOWN

%lop FRESHWATER WETLANDS
to SALTWATER WETLANDS
L E3

MAP 5 SURFICIAL GEOLOGY

4% \lj

NORTH KINGSTOWN
/NARRAGANSETT

SOUTH KINGSTOWN

IIf

STRATIFIED DRIFT (OUTWASH)
. . . . . . . .......
MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND A GRAVEL INTERSEDDED WlFINE SAND.
r
IMT AND c"y: GENERALLY wELL SORTED AND STFIATFIED.
FORMS A TWCK MANTLE OVER THE BEDROOL
El WED TILL AND STRATIFIED DRIFT (OUTWASH)
TILL AND STRATIF D DRIFT WHICH GRADE INTO ONE ANOTHER
OR ARE MIXED IN VARYING PROPORnONS.
F-] TILL
BOULDERS, GRAVEL, SAM. SILT AND @V: FOORLY SORTED
A
A
ND UNSTRATIFIED. FORMS A THIN DISCONTINUOUS MANTLE
L OVER THE BEDROCK.

MAP 6 SEPTIC SYSTEM CONSTRAINTS

NORTH KINGSTOWN
p*1
/NARRAGANSETT

SOUTH KINGSTOWN

SLIGHT CONSTRAINTS
r SOIL RROPERTIDES OR SAITE LIMITATIONS ARE GENERALLY
FAVOC OLE AN LIMIT TIONS ARE MINOR OR EASILY
OVER OME.

L MODERATE CONSTRAINTS

SOIL PROPERTIES OR SITE LIMITATIONS ARE UNFAVORABLE
BUT CAN BE OVERCOME WITH SPECIAL PLANNING AND
06SIGN.

L SEVERE CONSTRAINTS
SOIL PROPERTIES OR SITE FEATURES ARE SO UNFAVORABLE
F] 0 SO DIFFICULT 10 OVERCOME THAT MAIOR SOIL
RECLA MATION, SPECIAL DESIGNS, OR INTENSIVE MAINTENANCE
IS REOUIRED-

MAP 7 EROSION POTENTIAL

Cl)

NORTH KINGSTOWN
/NARRAGANSETT

SOUTH KINGSTOWN

/or

IIr
El SEVERE (SLOPES >15%)
0 MODERATE-SEVERE (SLOPES B-15%)
F] SLIGHT-MODERATE (SLOPES 0-8%)

MAP 8 AREAS SERVICED BY PUBLIC UTILITIES

NORTH KINGSTOWN
NARRAGANSETT

SOUTH KINGSTOWN

Xx
X,

AREAS SERVICED .1 PUBLIC WATER

.. AREAS SERVICED BY PUBLIC WATER
AND SEWER LINES

A1114 WITH PUBLIC WATER AND
PROPOSED SEWER LINE

MAP 9 HYDROLOGIC SOIL TYPES

NORTH KINGSTOWN
NARRAGANSETT

LOW RUNOFF POTENTIAL
SOUTH KINGSTOWN
SOILS WITH HIGH INFILTRATION RATE EVE" WHEN THOROUGHLY
WETTED CONSISTING CHIEFLY OF DEEP WELL TO EXCESSIVELY
WELL DRAINED SANDS OR GRAVELS.

SO LS WITH MODERATE INFILTRATION RATE WHEN THOROUGHLY
WETTED AND CONSISTING CHIEFLY OF MODERATELY DEEP TO
DEEP. MODERATELY WELL TO WELL DRAINED SOILS WITH
MODERATELY FINE TO MODERATELY COARSE TEXTURE.
Ir

SOILS HAVING A SLOW INFILTRATION RATE WHEN THOROUGHLY
F-1 WETTED AND CONSISTING CHIEFLY OF SOILS WIT. A LAYER
THAT IMPEDES DOWNWARD MOVEMENT OF WATER OR SOILS
WITH MODERATELY F114E TO FINE TEXTURE.

HIGH RUNOFF POTENTIAL
X., SOILS HAVING A VERY SLOW INFILTRATION RATE WHEN
THOROUGHLY WETTED AND CONSISTING OF CLAY SOILS WITH
F-7 -9 A HIGH SWELLING POTENTIAL. SOILS WITH A PERMANENT HIGH
WATER TABLE. S ILS WITH CLAY PAN OR CLAY LAYER AT OR
"EAR THE SURFACE AND SHALLOW SOILS OVER NEARLY
IMPERVIOUS MATERIAL.

D; r--J

MAP 10 DEPTH TO WATER TABLE

NORTH KINGSTOWN NARRAGANSETT

SOUTH KINGSTOWN

0-3' (0-1 m)

(> 2 m)

MAP 11 ZONING

%IJ

NORTH KINGSTOWN
NARRAGANSETT

RESIDENTIAL
SOUTH KINGSTOWN E LOW DENSITY
NORTH KINGSTOWN 60.000WOUARE FEET/
R80 D ELLING UNIT
SOUTH KINGSTOWN 80.0008q. It./du
ff] MEDIUM DENSITY
NORTH KINGSTOWN 40.0009q.ft.idu
NARRAGANSETT 40.000aq.tt./du
HIGH DENSITY
A20 :ORT. KINGSTOWN 20.000sq. ft./du
OUTH KINGSTOWN 20.000.q. fl./du
RII NARRAGANSETT 16.000 a. ft./d.
RIO 10.000sq. ft./du
UR URBAN REDEVELOPMENT

COMMERCIAL

INDUSTRIAL

OPEN SPACE, PUBLIC LANDS,
CONSERVATION, RECREATION

oe,

7c -

MAP 12 BATHYMETRIC PROFILE

SILVER SMOG LAKE
0

10
14.000t 20
I., GO 14,000 14,500
DISTANCE UPSTREAM (motors'
13,000.-% PAU.ACACO
0 POND

10
12.000.-
I 1,000s,, 20
'500 11.0 11,300
'@@"D`ISTANC'OEOCIPSTREAM C-t-)

I0.OD0. UPPER POND

9000m 20

9000 9500 10.000
DISTANCE UPSTREAM (motor.)

SODOM
LOWER POND
BOTTOM SEDIMENT
DISTRIBUTION: w..

0
OYSTER ROCK 7000m

20
COBBLE
6500 7000 75W 8000 850,0 9000
GRAVEL DISTANCE UPSTREAM (-to.)

SAND MODLE ESTUARY BRIDGETOWN BRIDGE
0
SILTY SANDS v
E
MUDS 5000. 10
l
20

3000 3800 4000 4600 5000 5500 6000 6500
4000M DISTANCE UPSTREAM (motors)

3000m THE COVE MIDDLEBRIDGE BRIDGE
0

2000m

1000. 0800 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
1000m, DISTANCE UPSTREAM (motors)

0 METERS

0 METERS THE NARROWS
0 SPRAGUE BRIDGE

0 Soo 1000 1500

DISTANCE UPSTREAM (motor.)

MAP 13 FLOOD HAZARD ZONE

cz:p

NORTH KINGSTOWN
/NARRAGANSETT

SOUTH KINGSTOWN

IIf

A ZONE( 100- YEAR FLOOD)
/r

V ZONE (HIGH HAZARD FLOOD)

APPENDIX B
Glossary

GLOSSARY

Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases shall be
interpreted so as to give them the meaning they have in common usage
and to give this Special Area Management Plan its most effective
application. Words used in the singular shall include the plural and
the plural the singular; words used in the present tense shall include
the future tense, where appropriate. The word "shall" connotes manda-
tory and not discretionary; the words "may" and/or "should" are per-
missive and discretionary.

(a) Adverse impacts - are any modifications, alterations or effects on
a feature or characteristic of waters or wetlands, or coastal feature,
including their quality, hydrodynamics, surface area, species composi-
tion, living resources, aesthetics or usefulness for human or natural
uses which are or may potentially be harmful or injurious to human
health, welfare, safety or property, to biological productivity, di-
versity, or stability or which unreasonably interfere with the enjoy-
ment of life or property, including outdoor recreation. The term
includes secondarv and cumulative as well as direct impacts.

(b) Clearing - means the removal of trees and brush from the land but
shall not include the ordinary mowing of grass.

(d) Developer - means any person who engages in development either as
the owner or as the agent of an owner of property.

(e) Development or Development Activity -
1) The construction, installation, alteration, demolition, or
removal of a structure, impervious surface, or drainage facility;
2) clearing, scrapping, grubbing, or otherwise removing or kil-
ling the vegetation of a site;
3) adding, removing, exposing, excavating, leveling, grading,
digging, burrowing, dumping, piling, dredging, or otherwise sig-
nificantly disturbing the soil, mud, sand, or rock of a site;

(f) Drainage facility - means any component of the drainage system;

(g) Drainage system - is the system through which water flows from the
land. This includes all watercourses, waterbodies, and wetlands.

(h) Erosion - is the wearing or washing away of the soil by the action
of wind or water.

(i) Flood - is a temporary rise in the level of any waterbody, water-
course, or wetland which results in the innundation of areas not
ordinarily covered by water.

(j) Impervious surface - means a surface which has been compacted or
covered with a layer of material so that it is highly resistant to
infiltration by water. It includes semi-impervious surfaces such as
compacted clay, as well as most conventionally surface streets, roofs,
sidewalks, parking lots and similar structures.

(k) Natural systems - means systems which predominantly consist of or
use thsoe communities of plants, animals, bacteria and other flora and
fauna which occur indigenously on the land, in the soil or the water.

(1) Owner - is the person in whom is vested fee ownership, dominion,
or title of property, i.e. the proprietor. This term may also include
a tenant, if chargeable under his lease for the maintenance of the
property, and any agent of the owner or tenant including a developer.

(m) Person - means any and all persons, natural or artificial and
includes any individual, firm, corporation, government agency, busi-
ness trust, estate, trust, partnership, association, two or more
persons having a joint or common interest, or any other legal entity.

(n) Predevelopment Conditions - are those conditions which existed
before alteration, resulting from human activity, of the natural
topography, vegetation and rate, volume, or direction or surface o,r
groundwater flow, as indicated by the best available historical data.

(o) Receiving Bodies of Water - shall mean any waterbodies, water-
courses or wetlands into which surface waters flow either naturally,
in manmade ditches, or in a closed conduit system.

(p) Retention - refers to the coliection and storage of runoff without
subsequent discharge to surface waters.

(q) Sediment - is fine particulate material, whether mineral or or-
ganic, that is carried by water, in suspension or has settled in a
waterbody.

(r) Sedimentation facility or device - means any structure or area
which is designed to hold runoff water until suspended sediments have
settled.

(s) Site - means any tract, lot or parcel of land or combination of
tracts, lots or parcels of land which are in one ownership, or are
contiguous and in diverse ownership where development is to be per-
formed as part of a unit, subdivision, or project.

(t) Structure - means that which is built or constructed, an edifice

or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or
Composed of parts joined together in some definite manner.

(u) Subdivide - means to divide the ownership of a parcel of land,
whether improved or unimproved, into two or more contiguous lots or
parcels; of land, whether by reference to a plat, by metes and bounds
or otherwise, or, if the establishment of a new street is involved,
any division of a parcel of land. Subdivision includes a resubdivi-
sion and when appropriate to the context, relates to the process of
subdividing or to the land subdivided.

(v) Vegetation - means all plant growth, especially trees, shrubs,
vines, ferns, mosses and grasses.

(w) Waters - means any and all water on or beneath the surface of the
ground. It include the water in any watercourse, waterbody or drain-
age system. It also includes diffused surface water and water perco-
lating, standing, or flowing beneath the surface of the ground, as
well as coastal waters.

(x) Watercourse - means any natural stream, river, creek, or waterway
in which water flows in a definite direction, either continuously or
intermittenly, and which has a definite channel, bed, or banks.

(z) Waterbody - means any natural or artifical pond, lake, reservoir
or other area which ordinarily or intermittently contains water and
which has a discernible shoreline.

(aa) Watershed - means a drainage area or drainage basin contributing
to the flow of water into a receiving body or water.

(bb) Wetlands - means those areas so defined in the Freshwater Wet-
lands Act and the Coastal Resources Management Program.

..........
A 61hill

04
iT

A&L
Amu- LOA 77",

Tft

lip m

3E668 14100 '505