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

                                                        Coastal Resources Center
                     HT                                University of Rhode Island
                     393                           Graduate School of Oceanography
                     R4                                   Narragansett, RI 02882
                     E58                                       401-792-6224
                     1981

    Ile

                                 Environmental Assessment

                                   Davisville Fbrt Expnsion

    'A

                                                  Prepared For

                                The Rhode Island Department of Economic Development
      4V,
      /Y@                                            By The
      /Y)                                   Coastal Resources Center
                                         Graduate School of Oceanography
                                           University of Rhode Island

                                                      1981

                  The preparation of this report was financed in part by funds from the Office
                  of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
                  U.S. Department of Commerce, administered by the ENERGY OFFICE, EXECUTIVE
                  DEPARTMENT, GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, STATE OF RHODE ISLAND.

                      TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                               Page
                      Part A: Environmental Assessment of Davisville Port Expansion
                      1.   Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                1-1

                      2.   Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action        . . . . . . . . .           2-1

                      3.   Summary Evaluation of Alternatives       . . . . . . . . . . . .            3-1
                           3.1  Site requirements and assumptions       . . . . . . . . . .            3-1
                           3.2  Bulkhead construction along Dogpatch      Beach   . . . . . .          3-2
                                Description of action      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             3-2
                                Summary of impacts    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              3-3
                                Mitigating measures     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              3-4
                           3.3  Bulkhead construction north of      Davisville Piers     . . .         3-5
                                Description of action      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             3-5
                                Summary of impacts    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              3-5
                                Mitigating measures     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              3-6
                           3.4  Reconstruction of Navy     Bulkhead   . . . . . . . . . . .            3-7
                                Description of action      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             3-7
                                Summary of impacts    . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .             3-8
                                Mitigating measures     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              3-8
                           3.5  Options considered but     rejected   . . . . . . . . . . .            3-9
                                Bulkhead between Davisville Piers and the Quonset
                                  State Airport      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             3-9
                                Alternate sites      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             3-9
                           3.6  No construction      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             3-10

                      4. Description of the Affected Environment         . . . . . . . . . .           4-1
                           4.1  Introduction   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               4-1
                           4.2  Location and general description of Davisville        and
                                  vicinity   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               4-1
                                Introduction   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .              4-1
                                Davisville Piers and Dogpatch       . . . . . . . . . . . .            4-2
                                Navy Bulkhead and residential compound       . . . . . . . .           4-3
                                The Airport    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               4-4
                                Allen Harbor   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               4-4
                                Calf Pasture Point    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              4-5
                           4.3  Terrestrial environment      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             4-7
                                Introduction   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               4-7
                                Surficial. geology and soils      . . . . . . . . . . . . .            4-7
                                Hydrology    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               4-10
                                Vegetation   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               4-10
                                Wildlife   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               4-10
                                Structure and archeological sites        . . . . . . . . . .           4-12

                                                                                                Page

                            Features of special significance in vicinity       of
                              proposal development at Dogpatch      . . . . . . . . .             4-12
                              The beach and dune    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               4-12
                              The wetland    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                4-14
                              Woods and stream    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               4-15
                              Abandoned lawns and open      fields  . . . . . . . . .             4-16
                            References  . . . . .        *  * '   ' * * * ' * *   * *  *          4-18
                     4.4    Geological features of* @he     marin*e environment   . .  .          4-19
                            Summary  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                  4-19
                            Near shore bottom characteristics       . . . . . . . . .             4-19
                            Bathymetry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                 4-20
                            Bottom surface conditions       . . . . . . . . . . . . .             4-21
                            Sediment  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                 4-21
                            Bedrock   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                 4-22
                            Overburden  . . . . .   * * '   * ' * * ' * * * * '   * '  *          4-23
                     4.5    Biological features of     the  marine environment    . . .           4-24
                            Introduction  . . . .            . . . . . . . . . . . .              4-24
                                                            0                  . . . .            4-25
                            Characterization of living      cmmunities  . . .
                            Suspended sediments     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               4-30
                            Pollutants .                                                          4-31
                              Water Quali4*                                                       4-31
                              Hydrocarbons in sediments      . . . . . . . . . . . .              4-32
                              Metals in sediments     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               4-35
                              Metals in clams     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               4-36

                     5.     Environmental Consequences      of Alternative Actions                5-1
                            5.1  Introduction     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               5-1
                            5.2  Bulkhead construction      along Dogpatch Beach    .  .          5-2
                                 Description of action      . . . . . . . . . . . . .             5-2
                                 Terrestrial impacts     . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              5-3
                                 Aquatic impacts    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               5-5
                                 Mitigating measures     . . . . . . . . . . . . . .              5-8
                                    Terrestrial   . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .               5-8.
                                   Aquatic   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                5-9
                     5.3    Bulkhead between Davisville Piers and the Quonset
                              State Airport     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               5-10
                            Description of action     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               5-10
                            Terrestrial impacts     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               5-11
                            Aquatic impacts     . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . .               5-11
                     5.4    Bulkhead north of Davisville      Pier  . . . . . . . . .             5-12
                            Description of action     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               5-12
                            Terrestrial impacts     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               5-13
                            Aquatic impacts . . o     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               5-13
                            Mitigating measures     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               5-15
                     5.5    Improvements to property     adjacent to  Davisville Piers
                              retained by the United     States Navy   . . . . . . . .            5-15
                            Description of action     . . .  o  . . . . . . . . ... .             5-15
                            Terrestrial impacts     . . .   o. . . . . . . . . . . .              5-16
                            Aquatic impacts     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               5-18
                            Mitigating measures     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .               5-20
                               Terrestrial      . . . . . .   o . . . . . . . . . . .             5-20
                               Aquatic   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .                5-20

                                                                                              Page

                            5.6 Actions with no impact on the Davisville site                 5-21
                                 Description of action   . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          5-21
                                 Alternate sites  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           5-20
                                 No construction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           5-22

                      Part B: Davisville,Port Expansion Assessment: Geology. Technical report
                               by Dr. R.L. McMaster and S.M. Greenlee.

                      Part C:  Davisville Port Expansion Assessment: Biology. Technical report
                               by Sheldon Pratt.

                  LIST OF FIGURES

                  Figure  1-1     Davisville Port Expansion Alternates

                          3-1     Davisville Port Expansion Alternates

                          4-1     Davisville Study Area
                          4-2     Surficial. Geology of Davisville
                          4-3     Soil Types at Davisville
                          4-4     Location of Wetlands, Beaches and Woods at Davisville
                          4-5     Land Cover at Dogpatch Parcel of Study Area
                          4-6     Vegetative Cover, Dogpatch Parcel
                          4-7     Bathymetry
                          4-8     Side Scan Survey
                          4-9     Surface Sand Distribution
                          4-10    Bedrock Depths
                          4-11    Sediment Overburden Thickness
                          4-12    Grab Sample Station Locations for Benthic Survey
                          4-13    Three Benthic Environments in Fry Cove
                          4-14    Location of Turbidity Stations
                          4-15    Temperature Section, May 28, 1980
                          4-16    Turbidity Sections, May 28, 1980
                          4-17    Turbidity and Temperature Profiles at Two Locations, June
                                       24, 1980
                          4-18    Station Locations for Water and Sediment Quality Samples
                          4-19    Metal Levels in Soft Shell Clams

                          5-1     Selected Port Expansion Plan
                          5-2     Full Development Port Expansion Plan
                          5-3     Changes to Dogpatch from Design 2, Incremental Development
                          5-4     Maximum Expansion Design
                          5-5     Bulkhead North of Davisville Piers
                          5-6     Reconstruction of Navy Bulkhead
                          5-7     Expansion of Navy Bulkhead
                          5-8     Alternate Sites for Port Expansion in Narragansett Bay

                   LIST OF TABLES

                     rable

                       4-1     List of Common and Scientific Names of Species Observed in
                               Woods & Stream, Dogpatch Site

                       4-2     Water Quality Data for Davisville Area

                       4-3     Summary of Sediment Hydrocarbon Data in Study Area

                 SYNOPSIS

                     This environmental assessment report has been prepared by the Coastal
                 Resources Center of the University of Rhode Island,under contract to the
                 Rhode Island Port Authority and Economic Development Corporation, RIPA.
                 Its purpose is to identify and assess the likely environmental effects of the

                 six alternate designs for port expansion at Davisville, Rhode Island as

                 proposed by C.E. Maguire, the engineering consultants who developed the

                 preliminary engineering report. Part A contains the environmental

                 assessment of the proposed expansion plan and several alternatives, following
                 the 1978 guidelines developed by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR
                 pt. 1502). Part B presents the report of geological studies conducted speci-
                 fically for this project. Part C is a detailed report on the marine biology
                 of the vicinity of Davisville, including scientific surveys conducted
                 specifically for this report. It also contains a thorough review of the
                 relevant scientific literature on the impacts of dredging on marine organisms.
                     The proposed port expansion design as described in the preliminary engineering
                 report is in essence a general development site plan. C.E. Maguire recommended
                 that RIPA have detailed engineering drawings prepared, which is the next step
                 prior to bidding for construction.  Responses to concerns raised in this
                 environmental assessment of the general plan would be addressed in this next
                 phase, along with complete specifications for implementing recommended mitigating

                 measures.

                    This report was prepared by Donald Robadue, Jr., project coordinator,
                 Stephen Olsen, and George Seavey of the Coastal Resources Center; Sheldon
                 Pratt of the Division of Marine Resources; and Dr. Robert McMaster and
                 Stephen Greenlee of the Graduate School of Oceanography, University of
                 Rhode Island. Jean Krul typed the entire report with precision and patience.

                 Lucia de Leiris prepared the geology and biology maps in Parts B and C.

                         SUMMARY

                         Since 1975, the Rhode Island Port Authority has leased wharf and land

                    space at Davisville to several companies which provide services to offshore

                    oil exploration operations. Several planning and management studies have

                    indicated that in the event of oil and gas exploration and development

                    activity on Georges Bank off the New England coast, a considerable increase

                    in service operations at the Davisville site-could occur. The Coastal

                    Energy Impact Program, created by the 1976 amendments to the federal

                    Coastal Zone Management Act, provides funds to states affected by the

                    impacts of energy-related facility development. The Rhode Island Port

                    Authority was awarded funds through the Governor's Energy Office, to

                    conduct port management, engineering and environmental impact assessment

                    studies as part of the state's effort to accommodate growth in oil industry

                    operations in a carefully planned fashion. Booz-Allen, Inc. conducted a

                    management study of port operations. C. E. Maguire, Inc. prepared the

                    preliminary engineering plans for port expansion at Davisville. The

                    Coastal Resources Center of the University of Rhode Island provided the

                    environmental impact assessment of the engineering designs.

                         Six alternate designs were developed for the Davisville site during the

                    planning phase of preliminary engineering by the project consultants after
                    discussions with the Department of Economic Development and the Quonset-
                    Davisville Planning Task Force; these were presented by C.E. Maguire in

                    its progress reports with the following designation:

                         Alternate 1: Original 1977 concept, for Dogpatch; Construction of
                                     .a 2,400 foot bulkhead south of the Navy Bulkhead
                                       parallel to Dogpatch Beach.

                                                     1@2

                 Alternate 2    Incremental concept for Dogpatch; 675-foot bulkhead
                                along Dogpatch Beach, with the potential for later
                                expansion to the full length of Alternate 1.

                 Alternate 3:   Maximum Dogpatch concept, 3,200 foot bulkhead filling
                                a large portion of Fry Cove between Davisville Pier
                                and the Airport.

                 Alternate 4:   Bulkhead north of Davisville Piers, 2300 feet adjacent
                                to land presently used for oil support operations.

                 Alternate 5:   Replacement or repair of existing Navy Bulkhead south
                                of Pier 1.

                .Alternate 6:   New Pier connected to reconstructed Navy bulkhead as
                                an expansion option for site.

                 Dredging is required in every alternate design. In addition, sites

            elsewhere in Narragansett Bay for locating offshore oil service base

            operators and a 'no'expansion' option were considered.

                 Alternate 2 was the alternate design preferred by the Rhode Island

            Port Authority and selected for the preliminary engineering design study.

            Alternate 5 would have less environmental impact.   However, the bulkhead is

            still retained by the Navy Construction Battalion Center.

                 Construction of Alternate design 2 will involve dredging 13 acres

            of sandy bottom in Fry Cove, constructing a 675-foot bulkhead and filling

            behind it to create 18 acres of land for use as a marine transportation

            terminal. An estimated 350,000 cubic yards of materials would be removed

            to create a 25-foot channel. About 160,000 cubic yards of that total would

            be surplus and must be stockpiled on land. Road and rail service improvements

            would be made along Marine Road, which passes through the Dogpatch parcel

            owned by the RIPA.

                 With the exception of the Dogpatch parcel, the property adjacent to

            the proposed bulkhead has been extensively modified since 1940 by filling,

            paving, bulkhead building, pier construction, and Construction Battalion

            activities by the Navy. The construction of the proposed bulkhead will have

            certain adverse environmental impacts, principally the permanent elimination

                                                           1-3

                  by burial of several acres of Fry Co ve bottom currently containing commercially

                  harvestable hard clams, Mercenaria mercenaria, and a two-acre marsh, containing

                  about one half acre of smooth cordgrass, �Rq@rLin
                                                                  A alterniflora  borderin, a

                  small pool of open water. The Spartina marsh is in turn surrounded by some 1.5

                  acres of the reed Phragmites.communis. A portion of Dogpatch Beach will be

                  covered as well. Adverse effects of turbidity during dredging on marine

                  organisms are not expected if adequate containment and retention of effluent

                  from hydraulic dredging is provided and the water produced from material

                  settling is drained to the bottom of the existing channel. Providing rail

                  and road access to the wharf through the Navy property would reduce

                  encroachment upon the upland stream and woods. However, if development is

                  confined to the land between the proposed new road and rail line, the

                  vegetated area will be protected. A buffer between activity on the wharf

                  and adjacent Navy housing may be required. The dredged material stockpile,

                  which will be located south of Marine Road adjacent to the airport, should

                  be covered or planted to reduce wind and rain erosion (Figure 1-1).

                       Each of the other designs was assessed by the engineering and envir-

                  onmental consultants. Alternate 1 would have enabled immediate construction

                  of the full length bulkhead along Dogpatch Beach, but was rejected by the

                  Port Authority in favor of the incremental approach incorporated in Alter-

                  nate 2. The incremental design provides greater flexibility in port

                  expansion planning. Alternate 3, filling a major portion of Fry Cove,

                  was too expensive and provided much more land and wharf space than would

                  be needed. A bulkhead could be built north of the existing piers, following

                  the plan of Alternate 4, avoiding some of the terrestrial impacts at

                  Dogpatch and retaining the integrity of Davisville piers as an offshore

                                                                                                        FRY
             D g-
                                FRY         Dog-             FRY           Dog-
                  N,
             patc               COVE       patch             COVE        p a ch                          COVE

              Do g - 150-11111
             p a t c h
                          FRY               W9                            Dog-
                                                        FRY             p    h        FRY
                          COVE             patc                          atc
                      P,                                COVE                          COVE

                            4.                              5.                           6.

                         Figure 1-1
                         Davisville Port Expansion Alternates
                                                                              'jjjRY
                                                                                                         COVE

                                                                                                          N

                                                                                                             feet

                                                         1-4

                 oil and gas exploration service base. The configuration and construction

                 details suggested by the consulting engineers was estimated to be much more

                 expensive than Alternate 2 due to the need for a deck along parts of the

                 bulkhead. The dredged channel would also be more exposed to wave action

                 and sedimentation, and present a greater likelihood of commercial operations

                 interfering with recreational uses in the vicinity of Allen Harbor. Recon-

                 struction of the existing Navy bulkhead, Alternate 5, would require the
                 least dredging and provide access to land adjacent to Davisville Pierst

                 avoiding the impact of filling parts of Fry Cove. However, a formal agree-

                 ment between the Navy and the State of Rhode Island would be required for

                 this option to be pursued further. Alternate 6, construction of a new pier

                 extending out from the Navy bulkhead would be contingent upon the completion

                 of Alternate 5 and was among the most expensive methods for increasing berths

                 and new land.

                      The environmental assessment in Part A has been prepared following the

                 format recommended by new regulations promulgated by the Council on Environ-

                 mental Quality in 1978 (43 Fed. Reg. 55994; 40 C.F.R. pt. 1502). Chapter
                 2 contains a discussion of the purpose and need for the proposed action,

                 Chapter 3 provided a summary evaluation of alternates. Chapter 4 consists

                 of a description of the affected environment. Chapter 5 consists of a detailed

                 evaluation of the consequences of alternative actions. Part B contains

                 I'Davisville Port Expansion Assessment, Geology" by Dr. Robert McMaster and

                 Stephen Greenlee, prepared in conjunction with the environmental assessment.

                 Part C is another technical report entitled "Effects of Port Expansion at

                 Davisville, Rhode Island on the Marine Environment" by Sheldon Pratt.

                                                         2-1

                    2. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

                         SLnce 1973, when the United States Navy first announced the deactivation

                    of Quonset Point Naval Air Rework Facility, followed by reductions in activity

                    at the Construction Battalion Center at Davisville, Rhode Island state govern-

                    ment has actively engaged in planning for the re-use of Navy land designated

                    surplus to federal needs. The first proposal, made by a legislative commission

                    in 1973, was to create a major container port at Quonset Point with expansion

                    to Davisville Piers. This effort did not lead to any specific action. In

                    1974, following cutbacks in Navy operations, several important actions were

                    taken by the state to accelerate the redevelopment effort. Legislation (Citle 42,Ch.6

                    created the Rhode Island Port Authority and Economic Development Corporation

                    which became responsible for the Protection and Maintenance Agreement reached

                    with the Department of Defense. The Port Authority was permitted to issue

                    30 day cancelable leases, utilizing revenues to provide services and maintain

                    the property until a sales agreement was reached. The Governor's Office

                    prepared a general plan for re-use of surplus military lands as required

                    of its application to acquire the property from the General Services Admin-

                    istration (Governor's Office, 1974). That plan proposed that Davisville

                    Piers be used "for intensive industrial development of a water oriented

                    nature." The Dogpatch parcel, located to the south between Navy retained

                    land and the airp ort, "should be reserved for future industrial re-use,

                    perhaps related to the re-use of Area D (Davisville Piers) or to the

                    airport." Assuming a direct connection to Davisville Piers, "a similar

                    marine terminal industrial use may be indicated" for Dogpatch.

                         At the same time re-use planning was proceeding, the federal government

                    was accelerating the leasing of tracts offshore for the purpose of oil and

                                                    2-2

               gas exploration. In 1975, industry nominations for tracts on Georges

               Bank off the New England coast were sought by the Department of Interior,

               coninciding with efforts by Rhode Island to attract oil industry intere st

               to Quonset Point/Davisville. Reports by the New England River Basins Commission

               (L976) raised the potential for substantial onshore economic activity in

               support of oil and gas drilling and production activities. A marketing

               study by Harbridge House (1976) concluded that "the development of the

               offshore oil reserves on the East Coast of the United States offers a

               substantial opportunity for employment in Narragansett Bay.11

                    A master plan for Quonset Point/Davisville was prepared  by the

               Department of Economic Development with the assistance of several  consulting

               firms during 1976 and 1977. Three development scenarios were developed and

               assessed. Scenario I was based upon the assumption of a high find of

               petroleum or gas on George's Bank off the New England coast. It was based

               upon the assumption that Davisville would become a primary location for

               industry supporting offshore oil exploration and development. Permanent

               service bases,a pipe laydown and coating yard, and oil production platfor m

               fabrication would all occur at Davisville. Scenario II was based on the

               assumption of a medium level find on George's Bank, and a mixed land use

               pattern at Davisville. Under this scenario, more service base activity

               would be accommodated. However, a higher proportion of new firms at

               Quonset/Davisville would not be associated with petroleum exploration.

               Scenario III was based upon the assumption that no oil or gas would be

               disc overed and no permanent service base activity would be located at

               Davisville (Keyes Associates, 1976),

                                                           2-3

                          The Rhode Island Port Authority  adopted Scenario II as its development

                     plan, which Involved the allocatIon of about 420 acres of land, Incitiditig

                     I)iivl.-;vlll.e I'l-ers and Dogpatch, to oil support operations. Also itic Luded

                     in the plan was the construction of a new bulkhead along Dogpatch Beach,

                     to support future expansion of oil support activity, a concept based upon

                     planning information developed by the New England River Basins Commission

                     in 1976. Service companies have been operating from Davisville since

                     1976 in support of test well drilling as well as exploration of the

                     Baltimore Canyon off the mid-Atlantic coast.

                          The goals of the Rhode Island Port Authority for Davisville Piers are

                     to provide full support for firms providing services, materials and equip-

                     ment to offshore oil exploration and production in the North Atlantic,

                     make the best use of existing and proposed facilities for oil support and

                     other activities, and maintain the competitive advantage of the state' for

                     marine transportation. Davisville is located equidistant between areas of

                     interest to the petroleum industry in Baltimore Canyon to the south and

                     George's Bank to the east, making it a convenient location for firms .

                     providing services to oil drilling activity in both areas. The port expansion
                     design prep,@tred by' C. E. Magi4ire    during 1980 is based upon research

                     into the marine, land, utility  and supporting transportation requirements

                     of service bases supporting outer continental shelf oil exploration. In

                     recognition of the need for maintaining full occupancy of new facilities,
                     the requirements of other users of port facilities were also investigated,

                     including commercial cargo and fishing.

                          The design preferred by the Rhode Island Port Authority, Alternate 2,

                     entails construction of a 675-foot long bulkhead, which contains 18 acres

                                                  '2-4

           of supporting land in front of Dogpatch Beach. This was determined to be

           the smallest practical increment of port expansion by C.E. Maguire, based

           on an analysis of user requirements. This facility could then.be extended

           southward as future needs develop.

          REFERENCES

              C.E. Maguire, Inc. 1980. Davisville Port Expansion. Preliminary Engineering
              Report. Providence.

              Coastal Resources Center. 1977. The Redevelopment of Quonset-Davisville.
              An Environmental Assessment. University of Rhode Island, Kingston.

              Commission to Study a Rhode Island-Connecticut Environmental City Compact.
              1973. Interim Report: Quonset. State House, Providence, RI.

              General Services Administration. 1978. Final Environmental Impact State-
              ment. Disposal of Surplus Federal Military Properties in Rhode Island.

              Harbridge House, Inc. 1976. Industrial and Commercial Marketability of
              Surplus Properties in Rhode Island. Boston, Mass.

              Keyes Associates. 1977. Quonset Point Technical Park Facilities Study.
              Providence, RI.

              New England River Basins Commission. 1976. Onshore Facilities Related to
              Offshore Oil and Gas Development. Estimates for New England. Boston, MA.

              New England River Basins Commission. 1976. Fact Book. Boston, MA.

              Rhode Island Governor's Office. 1974. Re-use and Development of United
              States Surplus Military Lands in Rhode Island. Providence, RI.

              Rhode Island Department of Economic Development. 1977. Master Development
              Plan Quonset Point/Davisville. Informational Booklet. Providence, RI.

                                                         3-1

                    3. SUMMARY EVALUATION OF ALTERNATE DESIGNS
                    3.1 SITE REQUIREMENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS

                         The Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council designated

                    Davisville Piers as the primary location in Rhode Island for service base

                    and other operations in support of oil and gas exploration on the outer

                    continental shelf (OCS). Section 540.0-2 of the Coastal Resources

                    Management Program adopted in 1977 states "a high priority of use of the

                    surplus Navy holdings at Davisville shall be commerce and industry related

                    and/or supportive of OCS oil and gas exploration."

                         The original concept of expanding Davisville Piers by constructing

                    a bulkhead to the south of Pier 1 along Dogpatch Beach was included in

                    Scenario II, the plan adopted by the Rhode Island Port Authority in 1977

                    in its master plan for the re-use of Quonset/Davisville. The purpose of

                    creating the new wharf was to provide additional marine facilities for

                    supporting oil industry service activities and to make the Dogpatch Beach

                    parcel more closely linked with oil drilling support activity at Davisville

                    Piers.

                         During the preliminary design of the bulkhead, which began in February

                    1980 by C.E. Maguire Inc, the user requirements for the facility were

                    more clearly defined and several configurations were examined for their

                    ability to meet user requirements and port activity needs. The basic

                    requirements for potential users of expanded facilities determined

                    by C.E. Maguire were a protected location, with a water depth of the channel

                    and berths of about 25 feet below mean low water, and a minimum of two

                    berths of 250 feet in length for OCS exploration support operation, or

                    feet for a one berth commercial port. Eight to ten acres of supporting

                                                     3-2

           land were assumed to be needed to support each berth in the service base

           operations, or 12 to 20 acres in the case of a commercial berth. The selected

           design should have a low cons truction cost, and be capable of incremental ex-

           pansion as demand warranted. Finally, it was assumed that the Navy control of

           the land between Davisville Piers and Dogpatch Beach would preclude reconstruc-

           tion of the existing Navy bulkhead or use of the Navy held land for service

           base or commercial operations.

                 The six designs proposed  by C.E. Maguire during its preliminary engineering

           study are shown in Figure 3-1. This chapter provides a summary of the environ-

           mental effects of these designs as well as options available to the Port Authority

           which would have no impacts at Davisville. Since many of the environmental

           effects of the alternate configurations are similar, the discussions of the'

           designs have been consolidated in the following manner:

                 Section 3.2: Bulkhead construction along Dogpatch Beach (Alternate
                               1, 775 feet; Alternate 2, 2400 feet.

                 Section 3.3: Bulkhead construction north of Davisville Piers
                               (Alternate 4, 2,300 feet).

                 Section 3.4:  Reconstruction of Navy Bulkhead (Alternates 5 and 6).

                 Section 3.5:  Rejected options (Alternate 3, Fry Cove Bulkhead and
                               other sites).

                 Section 3.6:  No construction option

                 Full discussions of each alternate design are provided in Chapter 5,

           including more detailed descriptions, maps and identification of impacts. Part

           C contains a thorough discussion of the impacts of dredging on marine organisms.

           3.2 BULKHEAD CONSTRUCTION ALONG DOGPATCH BEACH

           Description of Action

                 The Rhode Island Port Authority is proposing to construct a 675-foot long

           bulkhead, dredge 360,000 cubic yards of material from 13 acres of Fry Cove to

                                                          FI\

                                                                        -27

                         Dog-                                                                                       FRY
                         patc              FRY         Dog-             FRY          Dog-                           COVE
                                           COVE       patch             COVE        patch

                         Dog-
                       patch        FRY                Dog                          Dog-
                                                     patc         FRY             patch         FRY
                                    COVE
                                                                  COVE                          COVE

                                     4.                               5.                           6.

                                  Figure 3-1
                                  Davisville Port Expansion Alternates
                                    tEEEEE

                                                                                                                     RY
                                                                                                                    CO

                                                                                                                    N

                                                                                                                   0         1000

                                                                                                                       feet

                                                          3-3

                create a new channel 25 feet deep; and fill behind the bulkhead to create

                about 18 acres of land for use as a commercial port (Figure 3-1 Alternate

                2). The location of the project is the northeastern corner of the area of

                Davisville known as Dogpatch Beach, just south of Davisville Piers adjacent

                to land retained for use by the Navy Construction Battalion Center. Should

                port activity warrant, the Port Authority would have the ability to expand

                the wharf as much as 1,800 feet further south, toward the outlet of Fry

                Pond, creating an additional 12 acres of land. About 160,000 cubic yards of

                surplus dredged material would be stored between the State Airport and Marine

                Road in Alternate 2. Maguire Alternate 1, immediate construction of the

                entire 2,400 foot bulkhead involving 700,000 cubic yards of dredged material,

                was rejected in favor of the incremental expansion program. Although no

                construction sequence was specified by C.E. Maguire, dredged material would

                probably be pumped behind the bulkhead and containment dikes. A weir would

                control the flow of water back into Fry Cove, permitting settling out of

                much of the suspended sediment behind the bulkhead in order to minimize the

                turbitidy caused by dredging.

                           Im a@@.ts

                      The primary effect of the proposed action will be the complete altera-

                tion of 31 acres of upland, shore and bottom. The principal environmental

                effects of the proposed action are the permanent destruction of a two acre

                salt marsh, portions of a sandy beach, and part of shallow subtidal zone

                by filling 18 acres with dredged material to create a wharf. Patches of a

                few square yards of oysters and soft shelled clams, and slightly larger areas

                of hard clams in depths accessible to recreational shellfishing will be lost.

                The new dredged channel will eliminate 13 acres of productive bottom in Fry

                Cove which is a portion of the commercial hard clam fishing ground in Fry Cove.

                                                        3-4

           With severe storms inflicting damage to the beach, natural processes would be

           unable to restore the undeveloped portion of Dogpatch Beach because of its

           isolation from sand supplies. The result probably will be an unavoidable

           continuing erosion of the shore line. Later construction of an additional

           12 acre wharf and 1625 foot bulkhead to achieve the full expansion proposed

           in Alternate 1 would lead to the loss of another 30 acres of shore and

           shallow bottom to filling, and 28 acres of productive deeper bottom due to

           dredging.

                 The operation of the port facility will probably lower water quality

           from SA (suitable for all uses) to SB (shellfishing restricted) leading to

           the closure of a 1000 foot zone around the wharf to shellfishing by the

           Department of Health. The temporary stockpile of surplus dredged material,

           if left unprotected, will be eroded by wind and storm runoff into Fry Cove.

           Mitigating Measures

                 Actions can be taken to lessen the impacts of dredging and bulkhead

           construction. Hard clams (Mercenaria mercenaria) should be removed before

           dredging. Effluent from dewatered dredged material should be released near

           the existing channel to reduce surface turbidity and avoid sediment deposition

           on areas where hard clams are located. The dredging sequence should permit the

           longest possible retention time of water in the containment structures to

           minimize the turbidity produced during construction.

                 Partial compensation for the loss of the beach and marsh could be

           achieved by beach nourishment or marsh building nearby, for example in the

           vicinity of Allen Harbor and Calf Pasture Point. However, in case of Alternate

              surplus material is being reserved for future expansion. The temporary

           stockptle of drodged mater-Iii.1s sliotil.d be covered or planted to redtice Oe

           likelihood of erosion.

                                                         3-5

                      Impacts on the Dogpatch parcel could be reduced by providing road and

                rail access through Navy controlled property rather than.making proposed

                transportation improvements along Marine Road. C.E. Maguire estimated that

                this alternate route was less expensive to construct. However, since Dogpatch

                is slated for eventual industrial development, transportation improvements are

                inevitable. In addition, permission would have to be secured from the Navy

                for long term access through the property. A policy to confine new industrial

                construction on Dogpatch south of the proposed rail line would protect the

                stream and woods, as well as save the vegetated zone dividing the Navy resi-

                dential compound to the north from activity at Dogpatch and the Quonset State

                Airport.

                3.3 BULKHEAD NORTH OF DAVISVILLE PIERS

                Description of Action

                      Twenty-six acres of new land, and 2,300 feet of berthing would be

                created by building a bulkhead linking Pier 2 to the entrance of Allen

                Harbor, along land owned by the Port Authority and presently used for

                offshore oil service base operations. Twenty-two acres of bottom would be

                dredged to create the new berths. The 770,000 cubic yards of dredged

                material would be used to fill behind the bulkhead, leaving no surplus.

                Summary of Impacts

                      The upland portion of this site is paved with asphalt which is in

                poor condition. Bulkhead development will require repavement of much of

                the area. A marsh of less than 3 acres adjacent to Pier 2 would be filled

                with dredged materials. This wotland is periodically overwashed by sand

                because of its exposure to wave action making it less valuable wildlife

                habitat. The beach leading north from the wetland to the entrance of Allen

                Harbor would also be filled. FL11ing of intertidal and shallow subtidal

                                                    3-6

           areas will result in the loss of an area of soft-shell clams (Mya arenaria)

           and other animals. However, these areas  are less productive than nearby

           Allen Harbor and Calf Pasture Point.

                The area to be dredged has undergone continuous disturbance from hard

           clam fishing. The hard clam M. mercenaria is more resistant to the effects

           of dredging than its competitors and predators, and therefore may be less

           affected by disturbances caused by dredging such as siltation and burial.

           Sediment suspended by dredging, and the effluent from dredged material

           dewatering will add to the turbidity of the Calf Pasture Point area for the

           duration of the congtruction and dredging, with sediment settling in the

           deeper portions of Allen Harbor, the dredged basins and West Passage. Sand

           drifts from north of the area to be dredged will probably cause filling in

           the Northwestern end of the channel, at a rate more rapid than that now

           occuring to the existing piers.and channel due to exposure to the north-

           easterly storms. During the flood tide dredging operations may produce some

           visible turbidity off Calf Pasture Point which is actively used for recre-

           ational shellfishing and swimming, representing a potential aesthetic

           concern.

                New port activity at the mouth of Allen Harbor will increase the

           likelihood of conflicts with recreational use. Shellfishing near the

           wharf would likely be prohibited by the Department of Health due to a

           change in water quality from SA to SB. The possibility of accidental
           pollution may affect shellfishing and proposed aquaculutre activity in the

           Harbor, although marina development would not be hindered.

           Mitigating Measures

                 Release of dredging effluent near the present channel or turning

           basin would reduce the biological and visual effects of suspended material

                                                          3-7

                 on shellfishing and swimming. Scheduling the dredging during winter months

                 would avoid the presence of a turbidity plume during peak recreational use.

                 Installation of a storm drainage system on the wharf would increase the

                 ability to control and cleanup spilled material before it enters the water.

                      The proximity to shellfishing grounds requires careful control of

                 operations on the wharf and by vessels to reduce the impact of pollutants

                 such as sewage, dock preservatives, chemicals or, petroleum products

                 which may enter the water directly or in storm water runoff.

                 3.4 IMPROVEMENTS TO PROPERTY ADJACENT TO DAVISVILLE PIERS
                       RETAINED BY THE UNITED STATES NAVY

                 Description of Action

                      A series of incremental actions could be taken utilizing the land

                 behind the presently deteriorating bulkhead which is retained by the U.S.

                 Navy Construction Battalion Center. These were suggested by C.E. Maguire

                 as Alternates 5 and 6. The first step would be to build a new 1,300

                 foot bulkhead seaward of the present decaying structure, and then dredge

                 about 10 acres of new channel producing 175,000 cubic yards of surplus

                 sediment requiring disposal. About 1.5 acres of new land would be created

                 by a small portion of the dredged material. Access might be obtained to

                 adjacent Navy land presently used for equipment storage. Alternate 6,

                 futur e expansion, would involve the construction of a new pile supported

                 or earth filled pier parallel to Pier 1, creating I new acres of land, and

                 2,300 linear feet of berthing. Fifteen acres would be dredged in addition

                 to that needed for bulkhead repair, yielding 370,000 cubic yards of surplus

                 material. The earth filled pier would reduce the volume of surplus material

                 to 170,000 cubic yards. The southern end of the Navy Bulkhead will be

                 filled and protected with stone armor.

                                                    3-8

           Summary of_Impacts

                Upgrading the Navy owned bulkhead will cause fewer environmental impacts

           than any other construction option. Dredging and material disposal are the

           primary concerns. The 10 acres of sandy bottom to be dredged contains com-

           mercially valuable hard clams which will be eliminated along with other

           bottom organisms serving as food for fish and ducks. If the sediment

           stockpile site is located adjacent to the Dogpatch parcel, the habitat of

           some small mammals will be disturbed. An alternate dredged material storage

           site is located at the intersection of Marine and Davisville Roads which is

           nearer to the Navy bulkhead. Any stockpile should be covered to reduce

           erosion by wind or rain.

                The repair work at the southern end of the bulkhead is likely to

           infringe upon the cobble beach and a corner of the marsh at Dogpatch.

           Some erosion of the beach at this junction would be expected. Active use

           of the land adjacent to the bulkhead would produce noise and visual dis-

           turbances to the Navy residential compound and birds nesting in the

           nearby wetland. Pollutants in storm water runoff from the site, and

           litter may also enter the marsh.
           Miti The use of clamshell dredging would avoid creating a large volume of

           sediment laden slurry which must be contained and settled-before release

           into Fry Cove. Reuse of dredged material for landscaping or marsh building

           would reduce the problem of dredged material disposal. Additional study

           would be required to evaluate and plan for marsh construction. Release

           of dredged effluent into existing channels will reduce the visible turbidity

           and sedimentation on shallower areas which are most valuable as hard clams

           and fish food habitat.

                                                           3-9

                      Hard clams can be removed.before channel dredging, a process already

                occurring since the area was opened to shellfishing in July, 1980. Addi-

                tional shore protection and land creation at the southern end of the

                bulkhead could reduce the amount of surplus dredged material and protect

                the marsh by improving shoreline stability. Fencing and vegetative buffers

                would reduce the intrusion of waterfront activity into the residential

                compound and marsh. Drainage of the site should be directed away from

                the marsh.

                3.5 OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED

                Bulkhead Between Davisville Piers and the Quonset State Airport

                      C.E. Maguire suggested a bulkhead configuration, Alternate 3 design,

                that created the greatest amount of land and berths, and offered a

                potential for accommodating dredged materials from other locations in

                Narragansett Bay. This proposal would create 3,200 feet of wharf, involve
                filling 120 acres of Fry Cove with 4.1 million cubic yards    of material,

                and require 40 acres of dredging. Productive shallow and deeper bottom

                would be lost, and more sediment would reach the vicinity of Allen Harbor

                than in other Fry Cove options.

                      Several factors make this option infeasible, such as high cost, the

                difficulty of obtaining and unloading two million cubic yards of fill from

                elsewhere in the Bay. In addition, there is no demonstrable need for a

                facility of that size.

                Alternate Sites

                      No suitable sites compatible with the design requirements for port

                operation such as offshore oil drilling service bases are available in the

                vicinity of Narragansett Bay. Although Providence Harbor and state owned

                property at Melville possess some potential, development plans for both

                                                   3-10

          sites preclude service base development.which does not require use of the deep

          berths available at both locations. New facilities could be constructed at

          Melville, but development in that location would not be superior to expansion

          options at Davisville Piers, since it is a considerable distance away from

          the center of operations at Davisville, may not be available when needed,

          and has been identified as a good site for fishing facilities (S. Sedgwick,

          C. Collins, and S. Olsen. 1980 Commercial Fishing Facility Needs in Rhode

          Island. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Kingston.

          3.6 NO CONSTRUCTION

                If Davisville develops as projected but no new or expanded facilities

          were constructed port management problems would likely occur. Most of the

          marine environmental impacts of constructing and operating the various

          alternate designs discussed in sections 3.2 to 3.4 would be avoided. Firms

          desiring to expand or locate at Davisville in order to be near the center

          of oil support activity (;ould not be accommodated. However, upland

          development at Dogpatch Beach and small scale improvements to existing

          facilities would still be likely to occur due to plans for industrial

          development at Davisville by the Rhode Island Port Authority.

                                                         4-1

                   4. DESCRIPTION OF THE AFFE       CTED ENVIRONMENT
                   4.1 INTRODUCTION

                        The Davisville port expansion proposal will have impacts on both the

                   coastal and marine environments. Research and planning studies conducted

                   since 1974 (see page 2-4) have provided a great deal of information on

                   the upland portion of Davisville, and some data on the vicinity of Fry

                   Cove and Allen Harbor. Additional biological and geological field inves-

                   tigations were conducted during the spring and summer of 1980 in order to

                   obtain greater detail on the vicinity of Davisville Piers. Technical

                   reports describing the methodology and findings of this research are

                   found in Part B, Marine Geology, and Part C, Marine Biology. This chapter

                   begins with an overview of the entire Davisville area, followed by descrip-

                   tions of major terrestrial, marine geology and biological features of the

                   project area. The terrestrial description of the Davisville and Dogpatch

                   sites in Section 4.3 concentrates on the shore and upland features likely

                   to receive direct and indirect impacts from the proposed port expansion.

                   A summary of the marine geology in the vicinity of Fry Cove and Allen

                   Harbor, is provided in Section 4.4 including bathymetry, sediment type and

                   thickness, depth of bedrock and bottom surface features. The chapter

                   concludes in section 4.5 with a description of aquatic biology focusing

                   on the benthic marine organisms most likely to receive impacts. Data on

                   water turbidity and pollutants in the sediments and water column is also

                   presented.
                   4.2 LOCATION AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF DAVISVILLE AND VICINITY

                   Introduction

                        Quonset Point/Davisville is located along the West Passage of Narra-

                   gansett Bay in North Kingstown, Rhode Island (Figure 4-1, Inset). The

                                                             N

                             PROW"C9

                                 WAft#M

                                                            %

                                        DAVISVILLE
                            WICKF            V6
                                                                                                                      calf      11 31

                                                                                     .;t.-.*'
                                               NEWPOR.

                                                                                                                                       00

                                                                                                en
                                                                                           Harbor
                           1 US Food and Drug
                              Administration
                           2 Town of North
                              Kingstown                                                                 2

                                                                                                          Davisville

                                                                                                            Piers

                                                toad

                                                                          Dogpatch

                                                                                                    Fry

                                                                                                    Cove
                                                             Airport

                                                                                                                       0     400 800
                                                                                                                            'F E E T   N

                                                                                                                            Navy retainod

                                                                             Figure 4-1 Davisville Study Area

                                                   4-2

              coastline of Quonset Point/Davisville extends for approximately six miles

              between the former carrier pier to the south and the boundary of Navy land

              at Mount View to the north. A comparison of current with historical

              National Ocean Survey Charts shows that it has been extensively modified

              from the original coastal contours and characteristics. Most of these

              changes occurred when the area was developed for military purposes in the

              early 1940s. Construction of a second pier at Davisville, and training of

              construction battalion personnel in the operation of heavy equipment have

              caused additional changes to the shore.

                    The Rhode Island Port Authority controls two major parcels of former

              Navy waterfront land slated for industrial development located between

              Quonset State Airport and Allen Harbor on the West Passage of Narragansett

              Bay (Figure 4-1). The more northerly parcel, Davisville Piers, incorporates

              a total of 96 acres located on the south side of the entrance to Allen

              Harbor. To the south, separated from Davisville Piers by a Navy retained

              bulkhead and residential compound, is Dogpatch, a triangular parcel of 35

              acres with the sandy beach of Fry Cove as its base, on the east. The Port

              Authority land is surrounded by the Airport, and Navy controlled land

              around Allen Harbor and Calf Pasture Point. The Town of North Kingstown

              owns a 15 acre parcel on Allen Harbor adjacent to Davisville Piers.

              The Davisville Piers and Dogpatch

                    The Davisville piers are now used almost exclusively as the base for

              the ongoing exploratory offshore drilling. Service boats carrying drilling

              muds and supplies, fuel, and gear make daily runs to the drilling sites,

              some 200 miles south of Narragansett Bay in the vicinity of Baltimore

              Canyon. The two piers, 250 and 600 feet wide, were built by the Navy and

              extend out from the shore 1200 feet to the southeast of Allen Harbor.

                                                           4-3

                    The entire parcel has been heavily altered from its original state and is

                    almost entirely paved. Much of the Davisville Piers vicinity was created

                    by land filling. When dredging was undertaken by the Navy to create berths

                    and navigation channels, large amounts of the material were put on land.

                    Dredged material was also dumped into open water, linking a former island

                    at Spink's Neck to the remainder of the Davisville Pier parcel. Davisville

                    Pier is served by railroad spurs that lead to the piers. The offshore oil

                    drilling companies now using the area have temporary office buildings,

                    warehouses, pollution control equipment, drilling mud tanks and various

                    other equipment and supplies located throughout the site. However, the

                    dockside space on both piers as well as the adjacent paved areas inland of

                    the piers are not intensively used.

                         Several hundred feet to the south of the Davisville Pier area is the

                    Dogpatch Parcel. It was not as heavily developed and retains a diversity

                    of features including a beach, a small wetland, wooded areas, and largely

                    undisturbed soil. Several abandoned houses and extensive lawns are present

                    on a flat plateau above the beach.

                    Navy Bulkhead and Residential Compound

                         The 95 acres of Navy retained land separating the Davisville piers

                    and the Dogpatch parcel is presently used primarily for equipment storage

                    by the Navy. In appearance the Navy waterfront land and bulkhead is

                    quite similar to the adjacent Davisville Piers, consisting of flat, hard-

                    topped land created by filling. Rail lines, and two large warehouses, are

                    prominent features. The Navy bulkhead would require extensive repairs or

                    reconstruction and channel dredging before it could be actively reused.

                         Along the border between the state-owned Dogpatch parcel and the

                    Navy retained area there is a residential compound consisting of seven

                                                   4-4

              single family homes presently occupied by Navy personnel. The area contains

              several acres of lawns, trees, and ornamental plantings.

              The Airport

                    Between the former Quonset Carrier pier and Dogpatch beach lies the

              Quonset State Airport, which was formerly used almost exclusively for Navy

              aircraft training and transport. Today's use is dominated by charter

              flights, small aircraft training exercise,� and Air National Guard activities
              recently relocated to Quonset from the Green State Airport in Warwick. Upon

              declaration of a national emergency, the federal government could permanently

              reactivate this airfield for military purposes in a ma tter of days.

                    The Quonset Point Airport required the creation of a large expanse

              of land in order to make the long runways. This was accomplished in the

              1940's by filling approximately 200 acres of the Bay behind a steel bulkhead.

              Also filled was a major section of a small tidal estuary at the southern end

              of Dogpatch Beach. Today freshwater Fry Pond flows into the Bay through a
              large double culvert under the runway, which also permits tidal flushing of

              the pond.

                    The Rhode Island Department of Transportation operates the airport

              for general aviation. Future users at Dogpatch will be required to consider

              such matters as communications interference, noise, height restrictions on

              structures, and access route development, since the northernmost runway

              extensions are directly adjacent to Dogpatch.

              Allen Harbor

                    Allen Harbor is a large tidal embayment located directly north of the

              Davisville Piers. The harbor is connected on its eastern'side to the Bay
              by a large dredged channel. The harbor possesses an extensive salt marsh
              and tidal flats which extend for one-third mile to the west onto privately

                                                          4-5

                    owned land. In addition, Allen Harbor has extensive stands of tall reed

                    Phragmites communis and low shrub growth and small trees including bayberry

                    and black cherry. On both sides of the channel entrance are extensive

                    stretches of sand and mud flats which attract considerable numbers of

                    shorebirds, particularly along the northern shore. The harbor is moderately

                    used by waterfowl, especially in the fall and winter months when scaup,

                    black ducks, and others take advantage of the protected waters for feeding

                    and nesting. Gulls and terns are always present at the harbor as they

                    are throughout most of coastal Rhode Island. Common terns have nested for

                    several years in the northern corner of the harbor on grounded barges along

                    the shore. Due largely to the past uses of Allen Harbor, water and bottom

                    sediment quality has declined although considerable recreational shell-

                    fishing does occur.

                          Allen Harbor is presently being used for some recreational boating,

                    a use which will probably increase in the future. The small Quonset Yacht

                    Club services the boats of Navy personnel. The town of North Kingstown

                    plans to utilize a parcel it has acquired on the eastern edge for marina

                    development, and planning for such use began in 1980. Allen Harbor has

                    long been regarded as a logical site for a large marina because o.f its

                    sheltered central Bay location, good depth and previous use as a large

                    marina when the base was in active use. Numerous opportunities   exist at

                    Allen Harbor to upgrade the shoreline by covering exposed trash at the

                    Navy dump, establishment of attractive marina, fishing or restaurant

                    facilities and/or marsh or tidal flat expansion.

                    Calf Pasture Point

                          To the north of Allen Harbor lies a two-hundred acre parcel which

                    contains one of the largest sandy beaches on Narragansett Bay. The parcel

                                                      4-6

               extends from the channel entrance to Allen Harbor north to the end of the

               Navy fence bordering the Mount View neighborhood. All of this land is Navy

               retained and can be used for remobilization at any time. Until this      year

               the beach at the northern end of the parcel has been leased from the Navy

               by the Town of North Kingstown for use as a swimming beach. A large wooded

               and ledge bordered hill lies in the center of the parcel on which bunkers

               have been constructed for military equipment storage.

                     Aside from the hill, the beach at Calf Pasture Point, a red maple swamp

               and a salt marsh at the northern end, most of the upland was created by the

               Navy. A large cove of Allen Harbor which extended into the center of the

               parcel was diked and transformed into a flat, Phragmites dominated upland.

               The lack of disturbances in recent years has made Calf Pasture Point more

               suitable as a wildlife habitat than during the period when it was used for

               heavy equipment operator training by the Construction Battalion Center.

                                                           4-7
                    4.3 TERRESTRIAL ENVIRONMENT

                    Inttoduc tion

                          The land in the vicinity of  Davisville Piers is a mixture of land

                    uses   including piers, bulkheads, marshalling areas, industrial development,

                    commercial and military aviation, residential districts and quiet woods,

                    fields, and marshes. The development of Quonset Point as a N   avy airbase,

                    and Davisville as a Construction Battalion Center during the 1940s left

                    the land in between the two, Dogpatch beach and its upland, relatively

                    undisturbed except for a cluster of single family houses which were abandoned

                    in 1974. This parcel is surrounded by a shoreline and topography which

                    bears little resemblance to its configuration prior to World War II.

                    Surficial Geology and Soils

                          Most of the surf.icial geology of the Quonset/Davisville area is domi-

                    nated by large expanses of glacial outwash (Figure 4-2). This includes

                    the entire area at Dogpatch. Outwash deposits, being the result of runoff

                    from a retreating or stationary glacier, consist largely of layers of silt,

                    sand or gravel of varying thickness. Large boulders or bedrock exposures

                    are usually notable absent. The outwash deposits at Davisville are extensive,

                    and as much as 135 feet thick in some locations (Coastal Resources Center,

                    1977). Glacial outwash has good water retention qualities, and as a result

                    some of the better performing wells are those in outwash areas.

                          The soils covering much of Davisville have been severely disturbed.

                    Only a few areas remain that have not been paved over, stripped of topsoil,

                    or entirely excavated leaving large exposures of the substrata. Other

                    areas have been filled in or covered over and now consist of made land.

                    The runways, the Navy and Davisville Piers (including much of the area north
                    of Pier #2), and the large open lands north of Allen Harbor are examples of

                    filled land. The Dogpatch site, consisting of about 35 acres of land

                    adjoining the waterfront at Fry's Cove, has not received much disturbance

                    to most of its original topsoils.

                                                  Qc8            sh
                                Qc8
                                         s   Allen&@/
                                              Harborl
                Qic7

                                                   QC

                                                     af

                                   Qem                              Davisville
                                                                    Piers

                                 Qc7

                                                 Qsh
                                   Dogpatch                                   Ea
                                                   Fry                        Qs      Marsh
                                                   Cove                       Qsh     Shore deposits
                          Q                                                   af      artificial fill

                                w                                                     graded,undiffer-
                                                                                      entiated ice
                                                                                      contact and channel
                      Qgm      Qem                                                    deposits
                                                                              Qc      Earliest
                                                  af                          Qc6b
                                                                              Qc7
                                                                              Qic7
                                                                              QC8     Most recent
                                Qc6b                                          Qem     end moraine
                                                                              Qgm     ground moraine

                                                                              w       open water

                                                                              0         2000     N
                                                                                 feet

                            Figure 4-2 Surficial Geology of Davisville
                            Source: J.P. Schafer, 1961. Surficial Geology of the Wickford
                                    Quadrangle. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington D.C.

                                                    4-8

                   A total of six different soil types are present in the  study area

              according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service

              (Soil Survey, N. Kingstown), (Figure 4-3).

                   From Calf Pasture Pt. to Airport bulkhead, the shore is comprised of

              sandy beaches (21), rocks and steel bulkheads. Sand beaches are found

              north of the ramp to just south of the Al len Harbor entrance at Dogpatch.

              The beaches, consisting of lenses of coarse-medium sand with gravel admix-

              ture, lie upon a coarser surface. The beaches are about 75-100 feet wide;

              slope 2-4 degrees offshore; and have at times 1-2 foot cusps on their

              foreshore. A small dune line borders the beach north of the ramp.

                   Behind the beach at Dogpatch is a small salt marsh which receives

              tidal waters from a small opening through the beach, and freshwater runoff

              from a culvert under Broadway draining the uplands. The salt marsh

              consists largely of organic material which is mixed with sand and other

              mineral sediments (Figure 4-4). The SCS classified this salt marsh soil

              type as Matunuck mucky peat (20). Contiguous to and   upstream of the salt

              marsh is a small depression through which a small stream flows during the

              wet seasons. It becomes nearly dry during the summer months. Soils in

              this depression are Carlisle muck (19) and like the salt marsh are very

              poorly drained as the water table remains near the surface all year. The

              organic material is greater than 51 inches deep. Beaches are highly prone

              to flooding, erosion, and storm damage. The salt marsh and wet upland

              soils are inappropriate for most development activities due to high water

              table, potential for subsidence, and susceptability to frost action. Any

              Major construction activity involving the areas occupied by these soils

              .should be preceeded by a program to totally excavate the area of all organic

              sediments (Lester Stillson, SCS, personal communication).

                                                   20

                                                                        Cut and fill

                                         20

                                              Land     Allen
                                              fill
                     Filled         20 62C              Harbor
                      area
                                                  20               Cut an
                                                                    fill

                                           Gravel
                                            pit

                   Paved

                    area
                                                                  .Paved area

                                     62 C                           DAVISVILLE
                                                                     PIERS

                       p     wa                        62C
                                         62C
                          Cut and    *%VOGPATCH    9
                            fill
                                            62A

                                                                    F R Y

                                 Paved
                                  area                             C 0 V E

                           water

                   Figure 4-3. Soil types at Davisville. See text for explanation of
                                categories. (source: Soil Conservation Service, 1973)

                                    Al len

                                    Harbor

                        S'j Ile                           DAVISVILLE
                                          00

                                                                                               Macsh
              Do                                      tiet
                pa@CPA T C H             "*-stream ou
                    el
                                                                                               Beach
                                                                                 N

                                                 Fry Cove
                                                                                               Woods

                                                                                 0    feet     600

                    ,Fry Pond outlet

                                 Figure 4-4. Location of wetlands, beaches and woods at
                                                 Davisville.

                                                          4-9

                          Most of the upland soils at Dogpatch are made up of two types of

                    Quonset gravelly sandy loam, one with a 0-3 percent slope (62A) and the

                    other with a 3-15 percent slope (62.C). Both consist of somewhat excess-

                    ively drained soils on the outwash plains and terraces composed predominately

                    of water sorted sands (SCS soil survey). The soils with less slope make

                    up the southern half of Dogpatch while the steeper area encompasses a

                    smaller section bordering the stream's northern shoreline. In general

                    the Quonset series of soils have only slight to moderate limitations for

                    development uses, but because of high permeability, are not suitable for

                    sanitary landfill or other uses which could impact aquifer recharge areas.

                    Quonset gravelly sandy loam soils have been designated by the Soil Con-

                    servation Service as soils of statewide importance for agriculture, even

                    though all Quonset soils tend toward droughtiness and have moderate

                    erosion potential. Prior to 1940, the entire area was in agricultural use.

                          Approximately four acres of cut and fill are present at Dogpatch,

                    and forms a triangular shaped zone at the most inland (northwesterly)

                    section near Davol Pond and Marine Road. This area was probably excavated

                    and regraded during the construction of the Quonset runways since it is

                    contiguous to them. This area has not been classified as to any individual

                    soil type. No cores have been taken and there is no information present as

                    to what is under the cut and filled area.

                                                   4-10

              Hydrology

                  Although the entire Quonset/Davisville area is situated above the

              Potowomut-Wickford aquifer, a large ground water recharge area for North

              Kingstown, this aquifer will not be affected by activities at Dogpatch.

              Groundwater flow under Quonset/Davisville is towards the Bay (Coastal

              Resources Center, 1977, p. 82). The recharge area basins are located to

              the west of the Quonset/Davisville properties.

                  Surface water flow at Dogpatch is limited to one small unnamed and

              intermittent stream which emerges from a culvert between two buildings on

              the adjacent Navy retained land (Figure 4-5). The stream follows a

              natural depression on the Dogpatch parcel and empties into the small

              marsh on the beach. This small stream is one of several drainage areas

              on the Quonset Point/Davisville property that have been channeled and

              culverted.

              Vegetation
                  Detailed descriptions of the vegetative communities at Quonset/

              Davisville are presented in earlier studies. (Coastal Resources Center,

              CRC, 1977 and General Services Administration, GSA, 1979). Four plant

              communities have been identified at Davisville: forested areas; shrubby

              sites which are in the midst of being transformed from open fields to

              woods; wetlands;.and areas where reforestation with pines has been

              attempted in order to reclaim and revitalize disturbed areas. Dominant

              species and other significant information has been compiled for Davis-

              ville and fifty other sites at Quonset Point/Davisville including a

              list of the common plant species. Both studies indicated that although

              most plant communities at Quonset are typical of those found throughout
              Rhode Island, they may be of more significance at Quonset/Davisville

              simply because they represent pockets of relatively und isturbed areas

                                               (off

                                                                                                                                           0

                                                                                      wi                                     4,4-
                                                                                        110tv                                 k,

                                                                                                                                                    0                     eG

                                                                             4P'
                                                                                                                                                                         Davis
                                                                                I Im

                                                                                            J                                                                                Pier
                                                                                                                                             a y

                                  Airport
                                                                                                                                            B Ikhead

                                                                                                          to0

                                                                                      00
                                                                                                                     3

                                                                                        DOGPATCH and vicinity
                                                                                             Womm)                   kHkAGMITES
                                                                                             SHRUB                  SPARTINA                 N
                                                         .,.Fry Pond                    0 SIRUCTURES                  DOGPATCH                        400
                                                             outlet                                                   BOONDARY                FFET

                                                                          Figure 4-5 Land cover at Dogpatch parcel of study area

                                                          4-11

                    within a heavily modified environment and serve to provide a vegetated buffer

                    between heavily developed parcels and those in residential and recreational

                    use.

                         The Dogpatch area contains a mixture of typical plant communities

                    (late shrubs, marsh, lawn) within a small 35 acre area (Figure 4-5). No

                    intentional reforestation activities are known to have been undertaken at

                    the site although the process of succession in which larger plants replace

                    smaller species over time is occurring rapidly. Because of former use of

                    the area for Naval officer residences, a considerable amount of the Dogpatch

                    uplands adjacent to the houses were planted with lawns and ornamental shrubs.

                    These have largely been abandoned and native vegetation is slowly invading

                    replacing lawns and ornamental shrubs in the process.

                    Wildlife

                         A brief examination of mammal populations at Quonset/Davisville was

                    undertaken in 1976 (Millar and Davis, 1976). Included in this inventory

                    was the area adjacent to the small stream which flows through the Dogpatch

                    parcel. This investigation was based on the identification of various

                    wildlife signs including tracks, scat, browse, sightings, and animal

                    remains. The result of this brief survey, together with a small mammal

                    trapping study undertaken at the same time (Howell, 1976), and observa-

                    tions of birds since 1976 indicate that Davisville has an extensive and

                    diverse wildlife population. This is largely due to the wide variety of

                    land cover types on the base and the absence of man and domestic animals.

                    Structures and Archeological Sites

                         A discussion of the various buildings and other developed structures
                    in the Dogpatch and Davisville Pier areas and the surrounding vicinity was

                                                   4-12
             presented by Harbridge House (1976, Marketability of Surplus Navy Property).

             In addition to the two piers, seven buildings were identified on the Pier

             property, and sixteen single family houses and a radio receiving station

             located at Dogpatch. None have been identified as being of historic or

             architectural significance, thereby constraining any alternative uses in

             the area (General Service Administration, 1978, p. 111-7).

                  Likewise, no archeological features of National Register significance
             exist within Dogpatch or the Davisville Piers (12/20/77 letter of Histori-

             cal Preservation Commission).

             Features of Special Significance in Vicinity of Proposed Development at
             Dogpat
                  The Dogpatch area has retained most of its original topsoil which

             is still vegetated to a large extent in contrast to the adjacent Airport
             and Davisville parcels. The mixture of open fields, shrubs, woods and

             wetlands accounts for its value as habitat for birds and other wildlife

             species. Dogpatch contains four major features of special significance

             in terms of development planning (Figures 4-5, 4-6).

             The Beach and Dune:

                  Dogpatch Beach is comprised primarily of sand and extends for approx-

             imately one-third mile from the bulkhead bordering the Quonset runways to
             another bulkhead at the Navy retained pier to the north. The beach forms
             the inland border of Fry Cove. The beach has received little recreational
             use since the Navy presence was reduced in 1974. Numerous sandpipers and
             plovers and similar shorebirds feed along the beach. According to Division

             of Fish and Wildlife, R-hode Island Department of Environmental Management,
             Dogpatch Beach has also been used as nesting habitat for a small colony
             of rare least terns. However, no nesting activity was observed in 1980.

                                                  Figure 4-6
                                                  VEGETATIVE COVER, DOGPATCH PARCEL

                                                                                     col
                                                                                                                   @T= U
                                                                                                                          APPLE STREET

                                                              zr.'
                                                                                                                     Zo
                                                                           L     "AL.,
                                                                                            N

                                                       P
                                                                            S

                                                                       -A
                                                           I. Oil
                                                             Jr

                                                                                     WIL: ;W,

                                                                                                                                                                           NAVY
                                                                                                                                                                           RESIDENTIAL
                                                                                                                                                                           COMPOUND
                                                                                                                     M
                                                                                                                       All
                                                        patch
                                                                                                                                                                                               <13

                                                                                    A
                                                                                                  C3                                      K

                                                                                                                                                                                                  Sr
                                                                                                                                                                           X
                                                                                                                             ............       .......
                                                                                                                       . .................

                                                             DOGPATCH bEACH

                                                                                                                                   er
                                                                                                                                                                                                         .1AR
                                                               stream            open water
                                                    U-spartina marsh
                                                    n.;-phragmites marsh                                                                                         N
                                                           -.-woods
                                                                                                                                100

                                                                                                                     FEET

                                                           4-13

                     The waters of the adjacent Fry Cove are often used by large numbers of

                     waterfowl, especially scaup. The construction of the bulkheads at each end

                     of the beach years ago has trapped the beach sands within ttio'cove inter-

                     rupting the natural process of long shore drift. As a result sand supply

                     has been effectively cut off, leading to erosion of the beach face.

                          The southern terminus of the beach is located at two culverts which

                     are the outlets of Fry Pond which is to the east side of the runways.

                     The beach is narrow here, and is backed by a three to four foot high eroding

                     upland plateau. Beach width increases further to the north and sand is

                     plentiful, enough so that a small dune is forming and becoming vegetated

                     with American beachgrass. The dune is approximately 150 to 200 feet long

                     and appears to be slowly lengthening in a northerly direction, perhaps

                     from eroded material from the adjacent escarpment. However, other portions

                     of the beach appear to display some southerly movement of sand.

                          In the central portion of the beach a concrete seawall was constructed

                     which protects the upland plateau and several now abandoned houses from

                     erosion. Dune grass is gaining a foothold in front of the seawall. North

                     of the houses and seawall is a small tidal creek which flows through the

                     salt marsh into Fry Cove. Due to the unstable nature of beach sediments

                     the creek tends to change position slightly on each tidal cycle. The

                     beach width begins to narrow considerably north of the creek. A dune has

                     formed between the beach and marsh which is completely vegetated, mostly

                     with Phragmites which helps prevent washovers of sand into the marsh. The

                     extreme northern alignment of the beach veers gradually toward the east

                     to meet the Navy bulkhead. This section of beach is cobble with very

                     little sand present.

                                                      4-14

              The Wetland:

                    A small, two acre wetland is located directly in back of the beach

              at its extreme northerly end (Figure 4-6). This salt marsh has apparently

              formed on sand accumulating after the Navy bulkhead was built. This sandy

              substrate, together with the outlet of a small freshwater stream at this

              location has presented ideal conditions for salt marsh formation. The

              stream but not the wetland appears in nautical charts of the Narragansett

              Bay prepared in 1900 by the Coast and Geodetic Survey.

                   The salt marsh portion of the wetland encompasses     approximately

              one-half acre of smooth cordgrass,_@p_@!,rtiaaL alternaflora, and open water

              areas. It is surrounded almost entirely by a wide band of tall reed grass

              _(Phragmites communis) which largely isolates the marsh interior from the

              outside. The @@h@mL@@!@_encompasses approximately one and one half

              acres. A small tidal creek through the beach connects the marsh with

              Fry Cove. An inter  mittent freshwater stream feeds through a culvert under

              a road to enter the salt marsh's southwestern corner. The marsh and

              tidal creek are used frequently by shorebirds and waders for feeding     and

              nesting. Use by birds is enhanced by the lack of disturbance by man      and

              the protective reed fringe. A pair of mallards nested successfully in

              the marsh in 1980. Successful waterf   owl nesting is unusual in many

              marshes in Rhode Island due to high levels of human or domestic animal

              disturbance.

                   The marsh, when viewed in relation to the entire Narragansett Bay,

              is probably of little significance due to its small size and probably

              minor contribution to and interaction with the Bay ecosystem. There

              are numerous larger, more diverse marshes in a more rural settings which

                                                            4@15

                     are of higher priority to protect because of their broad values for wildlife

                     or as an aesthetic resource.

                     Woodm and Stream:

                          The small stream which feeds into the salt marshes emerges from a

                     culvert which drains Navy retained land to the north. The stream flows

                     through a densely wooded gully to the salt marsh. The woodland consists

                     largely of a tangle of shrubs and vines including wild grapes, honeysuckle,

                     and-bittersweet, and is approximately 10 acres in size. Dominant woody

                     shrubs and trees include wild black cherry, young black oak, alder, aspen

                     and sumac, all more indicative of a late shrub stage than a mature woodland.

                     Several pine trees and juniper are found on the woodland edge but the dominant

                     trees are hardwoods throughout the 400 to 500 foot length of the stream.

                     Remnants of an old orchard are present as well. Although the stream is
                     intermittent and'can dry up completely after several days of dry weather,

                     the soils within and along the sloping edges of the stream bed are highly

                     organic and mucky and remain wet all year. The stream bank is heavily shaded

                     in some sections, providing good growing conditions for numerous common

                     groundcover plants such as Virginia creeper, poison ivy, and sensitive fern.

                     Open sunlit areas, more conducive to the growth of taller shrubs contain

                     winterberry, bayberry, arrowwood and alder, all valuable berry producers

                     and attractive to birdlife. Birds observed here include the mockingbird,

                     robin, purple finch, redwinged blackbird as well as numerous warblers. A

                     brief Mammal study during 1976 found that, like the rest of Quonset/Davisville,

                     cottontail rabbits are numerous at Dogpatch, particularly the forest/shrubland

                     edge (Millar and Davis, 1976).

                        The major attribute of this stream and woodland, in addition to

                     its value to wildlife, is the important role it plays as an effective

                                                  4-16

              visual buffer between the upland areas and the Navy and oil industry

              operations at Davisville piers. It adds diversity to the landscape and

              provides the only distinct separation between various use districts on
              the Quonset/Davisville shoreline. Scientific names of species are listed

              on Table 4-1.

              Abandoned Lawns and Open Fields:

                  The central portion of the Dogpatch parcel has experienced some
              changes to the native vegetative cover during the operation of the Navy

              base. However, topsoils are for the most part original. The numerous

              lawns and ornamental plantings associated with the abandoned housing have

              now been to a large extent abandoned. Land further from the houses is
              dominated by native plant species. Abandoned fields with grasses and
              early shrub stage successsional areas lend a diversity to the upland envir-
              onment and since present levels of disturbance are low, they are,of
              particular value as wildlife feeding and nesting habitat. Large numbers

              of small mammals such as whitefooted mice and meadow voles utilize this
              area and birds are everywhere. Although many of the bird species'sighted

              are those that have become associated with the suburban environment such

              as starlings and English sparrows, the lack of use of this area by man
              in recent years has made the area more attractive to "wilder" species
              such as kingbirds, various warblers, and meadowlarks. The latter species
              is found nesting in sizeable numbers in the abandoned fields and shrubby

              areas.

                                                              4-17

                                                        TABLE 4-1

                              List of Common and Scientific Names of Species Observed In
                                             Woods and Stream, Dogpatch Site

                      Woodland

                            wild grape                        V i t i s-
                            honeysuckle                       Lonicera
                            bittersweet                       Celastrus scandens
                            wild black cherry                 Prunus serotina
                            black oak                         Quercus velutina
                            alder                             Alnus rugosa
                            aspen                             Populus sp.
                            sumac                             Rhu s

                      Stream Bank

                            Virginia creeper                  Parthenocissus _qu n i@olia,
                            poison ivy                        Rhus radicans
                            sensitive fern                    Onoclea sensibilis
                            winterberry                       Ilex verticillata
                            bayberry                          Myrica ensylvanica
                            arrow wood                        Viburnum            n

                      Wildlife

                            mockingbird                       Mimus polyglottos
                            robin                             Tu-rdus@ migratorius
                            bluejay                           Cyanocitta cristata
                            red winged  blackbird             AgelaiusplLoeniceus
                            warblers                          Parulidae
                            cottontail  rabbit                Sylvilagus sp.
                            Eastern meadowlark                Sturnella
                            mallards                          -Inas platyrhyneas-
                            greater scaup                            marica
                      Shore beachgrass                        Amnophila brevilingulata
                            smooth cordgrass                  �partina alterniflora
                            reed grass                        P ra mites communis

                                                  4-18

             References

             Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island. 1977. The Redevelop
                  ment of Quonset/Davisville: An Environmental Assessment. Marine
                  Technical Report #55.

             General Services Administration. April 1978. Disposal of Surplus Federal
                  Military Properties in R.I. Draft Environmental Impact Statement
                  Technical Appendices.

             General Services Administration. November 1978. Disposal of Surplus
                  Federal Military Properties in R.I. Final Environmental Impact State-
                  ment.

             Harbridge House, Inc. 1976. Industrial and Commercial Marketability of
                  Surplus Properties in Rhode Island. Report to the R.I. Dept. of
                  Economic Development.

             Howell, P. 1976. A brief small mammal survey of _Quc@nsE@_t Naval Base.
                  Unpublished paper presented to Zoology Department, University of Rhode
                  Island.

             Millar, S. and A. Davis. 1976. The mammals and possible value of habitats
                  of Quonset Point, North Kingstown, Rhode Island. Unpublished paper
                  presented to Zoology Dept., University of Rhode Island.

             U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. 1973. Interim Soil
                  Survey Report for North Kingstown, Rhode Island.

             United States Dept. of the Interior, Geology Survey. 1968. Hydrologic
                  Characteristics and Sustained Yield of Principal Groundwater Units
                  Potowomut-Wickford area of Rhode Island. Water-Supply Paper 1775.

             United States Dept. of the Interior, Geological Survey. 1961, Surficial
                  geology of the Wickford Quadrangle. Geologic Quadrangle maps of the
                  United States.

                                                          4-19

                     4.4 GEOLOGICAL FEATURES OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

                     Introduction

                         The proposal to build a bulkhead and dredge off Dogpatch Beach raised

                     several concerns pertaining to the geology of the area. Since construction

                     of a dredged channel is enormously more expensive if blasting is involved,

                     it is essential to know the location of bedrock. This is also important

                     for bulkhead design since the foundation of the structure may have to be

                     anchored in bedrock. Further the environmental impacts of dredging activity

                     as 'well as several engineering considerations are determined in good part

                     by the type of sediment that must be removed. Detailed site investigations

                     of depth to bedrock and sediment characteristics were undertaken as part of

                     this environmental assessment by Dr. Robert McMaster, and are reported in

                     Part B. The result of the 1980 study show that bedrock in the study is

                     25 to 99 feet below the surface sediment and that the overburden is composed

                     of glacial sediments. These findings indicate no geological constraints to

                     project construction.

                         A second series of concerns relate to the behavior of the bottom. An

                     active bottom as determined by detailed bathymetry and observation of

                     ripples and waves on the bottom itself may indicate areas where in-filling

                     of a channel might be severe or when construction may interfere with

                     important natural processes. Detailed observations using side scan sonar

                     show that the gentle-sloping bottom off Dogpatch is almost featureless

                     and, therefore, largely inactive and that there are equally few signs of

                     activity on the slopes of the dredged channels or the deep basin off the

                     outlet of Pry Pond.

                         Adjacent to the Dogpatch shoreline, the bottom is essentially flat.

                     This very shallow flat bottom extends many hundredsof feet bayward. Fine

                     sand, light at the surface but dark below, characterizes the bottom. In

                                                  4-20

             front of the Dogpatch cottages south of Pier I about 2 feet of fine sand

             overlie a mud layer of 0.5 to 1 ft in thickness. The mud is composed of

             85% silt, 10% clay, and 5% sand. The extent of this mud layer in the

             entire nearshore bottom is unknown. An occasional boulder is also observed

             in the nearshore zone. A fan-shaped deposit of sand and gravel, extending

             some 200 feet outward from the shore, lies adjacent to the marsh just north

             of the line of cottages. Where the airport bulkhead begins the bottom

             consists of cobbles and boulders which may serve to protect the two large

             culverts which permit tidal exchange with Fry's Pond.

                   Some insight into shoreline processes may be inferred. Evidence

             of net southward beach drift is apparent from the beach accretion on the

             north side of the Allen Harbor entrance, sand in-filling on the north s-4de

             of the harbor channel, rip-rapping on south side of harbor entrance,

             eroded shore south of Pier 1, and southward off setting of swamp channelway

             south of Pier 1. However, the southward beach drift is believed to be

             weak south of Allen Harbor entrance.

                   No evidence was uncovered during the July 1980 field inspection to

             support the existence of a seasonal exchange of sand from the beach to the

             nearshore bottom or from the nearshore bottom to the beach.

             BathMetry
                   Bathymetric data are presented as a contour map (Figure 4-7). The

             relief in the area is characterized by the dredged ship channel network

             and a drowned stream channel adjacent to the airport bulkhead. Otherwise,

             the bottom shows a gradual inclination offshore from 6 to 26 feet. Their
             edges are well-defined and marked by slopes that range from 1:2.5 to 1:4.

             Apparent sitimps are observed at a few locations.

                            -37                       DAVISVILLE PIERS

                                                                                              CP

                                     Do9patch

                                                                                                            14

                                            ----------

                                               Figure 4-7
                                                BATHYMETRY
                             410    (Boundinse Corrected to Mean Low Water)
                            -36'
                                               Contour Intervals 1-foof
                                      01       ----------                  01.5

                                                                            N
                                                                   I InGthw400 fo*t

                                                                                               710
                                                                                                214'

                                                          4-21

                          A drowned stream valley complex lies immediately north of the airport

                    bulkhead and essentially parallels the structure. This valley extends from

                    the vicinity of the shore eastward to a position northeast of the bulkhead

                    where it loses its identity. Depths within the valley reach 18 to 26 feet.

                    The most noteworthy aspect of this feature is that a narrow divide separates

                    the depression into two well-defined channelways.

                          Aside from these prominent features, the bottom is shallower with no

                    distinct relief except for two small "mounds" that occur between the piers

                    and airport bulkhead at depths of 17 feet.-

                    Bottom surface conditions (side-scan sonar)

                          A side-viewing sonar survey revealed a small variety of bottom features

                    within the area (Figure 4-8). These features include the edges of channelways;

                    the units of the valley complex adjacent to the airport bulkhead; the divide

                    within the valley complex; rake marks; three arbitrary categories of bottom

                    roughness (i.e. slightly rough, very slightly rough and smooth bottom);

                    and a number of unidentified targets. The distribution of the features

                    follows no pattern except that the smoothest bottom occurs only in the

                    channels and valley complex.

                    Sediment

                          Surface sediments range from sands to silts (Figure 4-9). These

                    sediment types reflect sand contents that vary from 98% sand to 4% sand.

                    Across the area, the bottom sediment shows dark sands composed of up to

                    98% sand inshore grading to dark sediment with 74-54% sand further off-

                    shore that contains 20-42% silt and 3-6% clay (particles less than 3.4

                    microns).

                                    Rough Bottom

                             Very Slightly Rough Bottom

                  37         Smooth Bottom

                             Edge of Channel. Hillock. or Depression

                             flake Mark*

                             Targets Undoffillied

                             Chain

                         Dopatch

                                                                                                                ?

                                                                                         ...  36-

                                                                                                    *42

                           Figure 4-8
                                                                   1980
                           SIDE-SCAN SURVEY              April 16
                   410    (Feature Locations Based Upon Slant Ranges)

                             0                                        Q5                                       7.
                                             nautical miles

                                                              I Inch.400 toot

                                                                                              T 1*
                               25'                                                            24

                                            76% Sand
                                    'MMEN' -60%-75% Send

                                           25%-60% Sand

                                          < 26% Sand

                                o-  Grab Samples 1-27 %sand content

                                a-  Samples from Coastal Resources C tor
                                      (1977) A-H %aand content

                                o-Core Locations: 413                         i::;

                                                                               t
                                Do9patch

                                                            00 a   06

                                                                                                        V*4 .1
                                                                                         09 3M

                                    Figure 4-9
                            41*     SURFACE SAND DISTRIBUTION
                            36,

                                                                                                      a" 9%

                                                  nautical Milos

                                                                         N
                                                                I Inch 400 feet

                                       215,                                                214'

                                                    4-22

                   The finest sediment, silt deposits, are located within the dredged

              ship channel and the drowned river valley adjacent to the airport bulkhead.

              In the ship channel, an unstratified silt accumulation, measured by coring

              to be approximate ly 18 inches at one location, contains 75-84% silt, 6-17%

              clay and 4-16% sand and overlies a sandy dredged surface. The silt within

              the drowned valley shows 77% silt, 13% clay and 10% sand. Beneath the

              surface silt, the bottom is composed of laminated units of fine sediment

              at least to a depth of 2.3 feet.

                   The sand component in all sediment types is dominated by fine to very

              fine sand. Shells and gravel comprise only 2-7% of the samples.

              Bedrock

                   Bedrock depths are shown in feet (Figure 4-10). C.E. Maguire boring

              sites with bedrock depths are also plotted. Compilation of bedrock depth

              data is presented in Part B of this report.

                   The depth, attitude and shape of the bedrock surface is apparently

              controlled by the down cutting of an ancient drainage system. The

              dissected surface lies from 47 to 119 ft below MLW with no obvious att-t-

              tude. Unfortunately, a significant portion of the surface is hidden

              because of attenuation of the acoustic signals by gaseous sediments

              beneath the channels and valley complex.

                                                                                    70

                                                                         100
                   37'  qNGaseous Sediment                                  90 8 0
                                                                        110      70
                             Bore Hole depth to bedrock                             60
                                                                                      50

                                                                                         80

                                           ;7

                                            56
                                    42                      80 90  100
                                      49
                                                        7

                                               6

                                           ,wi-4-7 "Ll.41q;IQaluilll@
                                                    70  n7O                          60

                         Fig.4-7 BEDROCK DEPTHS
                    410          in feet measured from mean low
                    36'          water. Contour interval: ten
                                 feet.
                           0     Nautical Miles         0.5

                                                     LA""j
                                                     0  400
                                                     feet
                                                                       710
                             215                                       241

                                                         4-23

                          A major bedrock valley crosses the area from NW to SE. Depths within

                    this valley reach more than 110 feet east of Pier 1 but shoal toward the

                    southeast before apparently connecting with a N-S trending channel that

                    lies adjacent to the study area on the east. A smaller bedrock valley,

                    oriented E-W, appears to join the NW-SE trending valley northeast of the

                    airport bulkhead. Bedrock depths within this valley are less than 90 feet.

                    South of Pier 1, it is uncertain as to how the bedrock depths of almost

                    100 feet are related to the valley segments described above.

                          The shallowest bedrock depthsi about 50 feet, are associated with

                    the western divide of the N-S trending valley that lies along the study

                    areals eastern side.

                    Overburden

                          Sediment thickness is plotted as an isopach map (Figure 4-11).

                    Calculated thickness values are based upon a sediment velocity of 5,000

                    ft/sec. All data on the overburden are presented in Appendix B. Sediment

                    thickness information from the C.E. Maguire borings and bore holes during

                    U.S. Navy ownership (Coastal Resources Center, 1977),is also shown.

                          Overburden thickness ranges from 25 to 99 feet. These values are

                    closely related to the configuration of the bedrock surface: the greatest

                    thickness occur in the bedrock valleys with lesser sediment cover lying

                    on the divides. Hence an overburden thickness of over 99 feet is found

                    immediately east of Pier 2 and more than 80 feet lies south of Pier 1.

                    Beneath the E-W trending valley complex, more than 50 feet of overburden

                    covers the bedrock.

                          The smallest accumulation, about 50 feet, lies above the bedrock

                    divide that occurs along the area's eastern side.

                                             F_

                                                                                                                                  so

                                                                                                                                      TO

                                           Gaseous Sediment

                                         -Bore Hole-Depth (ft) of Overburden

                                         -Bar* Hole--Depth 00 of Penetration
                                                                                                 so                                 so
                               -37,              to refusal                                          90   90
                                       0 -Bore M619--Dopth 00 of Penetration                                so                      70
                                                 In Overburden                                                7D                   so
                                                                                                                60
                                       Is -Bore Hole--(Navy) Depth (ft)
                                                of Penetration in Overburden                                            30

                                                                                                                              w

                                                                        so

                                         Dogplatch                     7    0
                                                       31  4,
                                                           48

                                                                      0
                                                                      32
                                                                  40

                                                                                                           ro

                                                 0
                                                 40                                                  72

                                       Figure 4-11
                                 410   SEDIMENT OVERBURDEN THICKNESS
                                                          In fast
                                                    Contour Intifirvalt 10 feet

                                                          nautical miles

                                                                                    N
                                                                         I inch - 400 feet

                                                                                                          T1*
                                                                                                          24'

                                                  4-24

                 A close inspection of the seismic records together with an inter-

             pretation of C.E. Maguire's boring logs indicates that the overburden is

             composed primarily of glacial outwash with a smaller amount of glacial

             till.

             4.5 BIOLOGICAL FEATURES OF THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

             Introduction

                 The primary effects of the proposed port expansion project will be to

             remove several acres of shallow bottom habitat in Fry Cove by fill or

             dredging and produce turbidity during dredging and dewatering of the dredged

             material. For this reason, biological investigations of the project site

             concentrated on characterizing the bottom communities present, assessing

             the natural turbidity in the area and compiling from the literature infor-

             mation on the effect of suspended sediments and burial on the organisms

             present. This information is presented in greater detail in Part C. In

             addition, this section contains a discussion of suspended sediments and

             the levels of metals and hydrocarbons in the bottom. Finally information

             on pollutants in the water column and in organisms at the site is provided

             and discussed.

                 The additional sampling undertaken in 1980 and described in Part C.

             was conducted so that comparisons could be made with the results of a 1976

             survey of the Davisville site (Coastal Resources Center, 1977). Although

             there has been no major change in human activities at Davisville during

             the four years between studies, noticeable changes took place in both
             the species composition and abundances of organisms. (Figure 4-12).

                                          J
                                                      Q1, Ma (MARCH 5. 129 1980-
                                                  0 aoism" (MAY rN 19so)

                                                         is

                                                   02

                                      05
                                          &      4%.-
                                 C         1.2!
                                    6                   %
                                   0        -7              go
                                                          % 0:
                                            Oil
                                 4RIO V

                  Figure4-12. Grab Sample Locations for Benthic Survey
                      Letters A-D designate reference points along Dogpatch Beach
                      for each series of 0.018 m2 samples.
                      A pilings
                      B sea wall
                      C rocks
                      D navy bulkhead

                                                            4-25

                      Characterization of Living  Communities

                           The bottom environments in the Davisville area can be placed into

                      three categories on the basis of depth. The first includes the deeper

                      dredged channels and basins and the natural channel in   Fry Cove (sta. 1,

                      2, 3, 9, 10, in Figure 4-13) which are floored with semi-fluid sediments

                      with 80-69 percent silt and 11-21 percent clay. The second is a shallow

                      sand platform or terrace which extends several hundred feet offshore

                      below the mean low tide level from Dogpatch Beach (see Figure 4-13).

                      The remaining stations (4, 5, 6, 7, 83" 11) are on gently sloping bottom

                      grading from 95 percent sand to 31 percent sand, 69 percent silt/clay

                      between the beach and channel. The shells of clams, oysters, and other

                      bivalves provide hard substrate and shelter in this mid area. Each depth

                      zone/bottom type has its own temperature pattern. The shallower areas

                      warm faster in the spring and have higher summer temperature.

                           Field collections of bottom animals were made in March and May 1980

                      using techniques similar to those used in the October 1976 survey for

                      the Coastal Resources Center (Pratt, 1977). The results of both surveys

                      are discussed in terms of the different groups of species present and the

                      adequacy of the baseline data to detect impacts of development. Numbers

                      of individuals identified in each sample are given in Tables 2-1 and 2-2

                      Part C.      The channel stations (1, 2, 3, 9, 10) had very low numbers

                      of species and individuals (1-5, 1-110). The few species present were

                      those adapted for life in the deeper soft bottoms of the    Bay. They are

                      commonly found in greater densities in similar environments in the Bay.

                      The Dogpatch beach samples (groups A, B, C, D) contained 4-21 species

                      per sample and high numbers of species adapted for unstable sandy sub-

                      strates such as the gem clam (Gemma gemma), the telline clam (Tellina

                                                         deeper basins
                                                         terrace
                                                     0 beach

                                                            18

                                               VI

                                                              -4
                                                      V2

                                                                30
                            @O 04       M5   -,                  I
                        V       4            12'
                           3 0
                        0    4       06
                          0

                                                        18

                      Figure 4-13 Characteristics  of benthic sampling stations.
                                   (see figure 4-12 and text for explanation)

                                                       4@26

                          and the polychaete worms Scoloplos robustus and Spio setosa.

                In the deeper beach samples on the edge of the platform (C-4) the tubes

                of the large amphipod, Ampelisca verrilli, were evident. Capitella

                capitata, a polychaete sometimes identified as a pollution or stress

                indicator was present in this area. Only 2 hardclam (Mercenaria mercenaria).

                juveniles and no softshell clams QM_V.@ arenaria.) were found.

                     The mid-depth samples (4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11) contained from 21 to 31

                species and 91 to 664 individuals per sample. Dominant species included

                the bivalve, Tellina agillis.; the gastropods, Crepidula fornicata, and.

                C. plana; the tube-dwelling amphipod crustacean,.@ @peli@sc@@ vadorum; and

                the polychaete Glycera americana (bloodworm). The bivalve, Nucula-

                annulata was found in the deeper, more silty samples. Hard clam juveniles

                were found in all mid-depth samples. The species present in the 'mid-depth

                samples were similar to those found in 1976. The numbers of individuals

                and species per sample was also similar.

                     Samples can also be compared in terms of the relative importance of

                each species within the samples by calculating a percent similarity index

                (Sanders, 1960). Duplicate samples 7 and 7Q had a 59 percent similarity.

                Samples from a given bottom type often show a 30 to 40   percent similarity.

                The values for three stations where samples were taken both in 1976 and 1980

                fall within this range:

                        Location                  Station                % similarity
                                               1976    1980

                     mid-depth                  15       5                    31.5
                     mid-depth                  14       7                    38.8
                     dredged channel            12       9                    31.3

                     These comparisons indicate that   the mid-depth areas have populations

                of bottom animals which are stable over seasons and years. This stability

                may be the result of the presence of many bivalve and polychaete species

                                                             4-27

                    which have a life span of a year or more, the presence of adequate oxygen

                    throughout the year,-and moderate wave effects and stable bottom.

                         The most significant finding of the survey was the large decrease of

                    individuals and species in the deep areas. This is illustrated by data

                    from matching stations:

                                                 1976                      1980
                          Location      sta.    inds.    species    sta.   inds.    species

                    Fry Cove channel      16     420       23         10    50         3-
                    Dredged-channel       .12    411       32         9     110        5
                    Dredged channel       17     460       27         --    --         --
                    Turning basin         11     199       22         1     16         3
                    Turning basin         --                          2     10         2
                    Turning basin                                     3       1        1

                    Additional qualitative   samples examined in both   years substantiated this

                    pattern. The species which were abundant in 1976 were the bivalves Necula

                    annulata, Macoma tenta, and Mulinia lateralis and the polychaetes

                    Pectinaria gouldii and Spiochaetopterous oculatus. The bottom sediments

                    in all deep areas verevery incohesive and anoxic below a few millimeters.

                    Although the previously occurring species are all adapted for life in

                    relatively soft sediments, M. -lateralis is a suspension feeder and might

                    not be able to feed on excessively soft bottom while the polychaetes occupy

                    tubes and require some sediment stability. The M. -tenta population observed

                    in 1976 probably consisted of animals which had set and grown during the

                    summer. This species may not in fact be adopted for year round survival

                    in very soft sediments. The absence of attached shell pairs, "clappers,"

                    of the bivalves indicated that these had not been recent mortalities. It.

                    is possible that the animals in these areas were killed during a period

                    of low oxygen levels. An alternative explanation for bivalve reduction

                    in Fry Cove channel is the feeding of very large flocks of diving ducks

                    during the winter.

                                                     4-28

                     The beach area was first sampled quantitatively in 1980). These
                samples (station groups A, B, C, D) show some overlap in species makeup
                with the mid-depth samples (stations 4, 59 6, 7, 8, 11) but all of the
                dominant species are restricted to shallow stations and are known to be
                characteristic of protected beach environments. The very dense population
                of the small gem clam, Gemma jger@, at one station may have resulted by
                concentration by waves and current similar to that which was observed in

                Charlestown Pond (Phelps, 1964). On Dogpatch Beach softshell clams are
                restricted to a cove south of the Navy bulkhead and patches around boulders.
                Apparently wave action and sand movement prevent establishment on the

                open sand platform.
                     Shellfish and finfish are abundant in the waters off Quonset/Davisville.
                The area supports both commercial and recreational fisheries: soft shelled
                clams, quahogs, flounder, scup, striped bass, bluefish, menhaden, lobster,
                conch and baitfish. North of the Davisville piers, the water is classified

                SA and shellfishing is permitted. Calf Pasture Point is an important
                Auaha uging ground. South of the Davisville piers in Fry Cove commercial
                quahauging has been active since the area was opened by the Department of

                Environmental Management in July 1980.
                     Data from routine Department of Natural Resources (DNR) fish trawls
                northwest of the Davisville piers show that commercially important finfish
                species are present. Several part-time draggers from Newport and Wickford
                catch winter flounder, scup, fluke, butterfish, and baitfish in the area.
                Menhaden frequently school in waters adjacent to Quonset (Ganz, 1975).
                Sportfishing is extremely popular in the West Passage. Sisson (1970)
                reports that Wickford based sportsfishermen spend an average of 44.6 days

                                                        4-29

                  a year fishing for bluefish, striped bass, flounder, tautaug, scup, mackerel,

                  and fluke, most of which is caught in the Quonset/Davisville vicinity.

                       The fisheries resources of Davisville area were inventoried by the

                  former R.I. DNR, Division of Fish and Wildlife (Ganz and Sisson, 1977;

                  summarized in CRC, 1977). They mapped concentrations of softshell clams

                  in the low intertidal immediately south of the Navy Bulkhead and among

                  rocks halfway down Dogpatch Beach. Maximum density in these patches were

                  similar to locations in Allen Harbor (42/m2). These areas have been used

                  by recreational diggers since opening of the fishery in July 1980. In

                  contrast shore between Allen Harbor and Davisville Pier 2 had low densities

                  of softshell clams (mean: 1.35/m2, n=17) despite seemingly suitable condi-

                  tions.

                       Hard clams are abundant in Fry Cove at  subtidal depths. In the 1976

                  CRC survey all the cove was shown as having  abundant clams but this was

                  based on only a few bullrake hauls. Since the Cove was opened in July

                  1980 it has been heavily fished by commercial quahaugers. As many as 30

                  or 40 boats have been seen in the cove at one time during periods when

                  preferred upper Bay areas have been closed. According to personnel of

                  the Department of Environmental Management Enforcement Division bullrakers

                  have been concentrated off the Navy "wooden" bulkhead and the airport

                  Itsteel" bulkhead. A high proportion of more valuable smaller clams were

                  reported off the steel bulkhead. Tongers working in shallower areas along

                  the beach appeared to be recovering higher proportions of larger clams.

                  A few hundred oysters are found on the rocks along Dogpatch Beach. They

                  are most abundant at the culvert draining Fry Pond but are limited by

                  availability of hard substrate and sand movement. The long double culvert

                  to Fry Pond may be a source of oyster larvae.

                                                     4-30

                 Suspended Sediments
                     During this project) field data on water clarity was obtained on three
                 occasions (March 4, May 25, and June 24, 1980). These data are compared

                 with the results of other studies in Narragansett Bay. Research on the

                 effects of suspended sediment on estuarine fauna and the effect of burial
                 by water deposited sediment on fauna are summarized in Part C. Winter

                 conditions were found on the-March 5 sampling trip. Water temperatures

                 were between OOC and 10C and except for a small near-bottom temperature

                 inversion at some stations (0.250C), there was no vertical stratification.

                 At the surface the clearest water was found offshore and downbay. The

                 most turbid water occurred on the shallow shelf off Calf Pasture Point
                 (Figure 4-14"). Turbidity was vertically homogeneous except at station 3

                 and 9 where there was a clear water layer near the bottom and at station

                 7 in Fry channel where the bottom layer was turbid. Light transmission
                 was generally high for Narragansett Bay (13-28%/m) and indicated low

                 concentrations of phytoplankton growth and the absence of recent storms.
                      On the May 28 sampling date a strong thermocline occurred at a depth
                 of 10-15 feet (Figure 4-14). At most stations there was a marked increase
                 in turbidity at the thermocline from surface values of 10-15%/m to 0-2% in
                 deeper layers (Figure 4-15). At station 7 in Fry Cove channel transmission/m
                 decreased regularly with depth from surface to bottom. At station 9 in
                 the dredged channel surface water was more turbid than water immediately
                 over the thermocline. Surface and bottom turbidities were similar throughout
                 the study area except in shallow water off Calf Pasture Point where turbidity
                 increased. Water sampled at station 4 showed an abundance of organic

                 detritus and copepod fecal pellets in the turbid deep layer.

                     ALLEN
                     HARSO
                                                                   16
                                                  (D13                          @21
                                                                   16
                                                     12                             21

                  DAVISVILLE
                        PIERS

                                               21
                                           (4E) io-
                                                            ?.%25               @24
                                                            \e424                  23

                       FRY COVE
                                                        %
                               020           @21 N         1022                 2 8
                                   14                          25
                                                                             9926

                Figure4-14   Location of  turbidity stations (circled numbers) and
                             surface/bottom values of percent light transmission
                             per meter obtained March 5. 1980.
                     ALLEN
                     HARSO

                               TEMPERATURE, OC

                 ALLEN HARBOR

                 W
                 W
                 LL.  0-
                      to-

                 C
                     20-
                 L
                 W             STATION
                 a   30'

                 DAVISVILLE PIERS

                                           -15

                 STATION                               5                  6
                 FRY COVE

                 STATION                               9                10

               Figure4-15. Temperature sections, May 28, 1980. 11:20-12:30,
                           Low tide 12:53 DST.

                                                         4-31

                        Two profiles were made on June 24 in the turning basin and in Fry

                   channel at Station 7 (Figure 4-17). Surface warming had continued and the

                   thermocline was thicker and deeper than in May. The turbidity pattern was

                   very different from that found in May (Figiire 4-16). The surface was

                   turbid, almost certainly from high concentrations of phytoplankton. Within

                   the thermocline the water was relatively clear, but turbidity increased

                   rapidly in a thermally homogeneous bottom layer.

                       .The results of these observations show that water was clearest in

                   March and that in both May and June there was a near-bottom layer   of

                   turbid water. Since conditions were presumably calmer than in March this

                   layer must form as a result of impact of low density detritus from organic

                   production and stratified conditions leading to concentration in bottom

                   layers. Tidal currents rather than waves keep the particles in suspension.

                        'No transmissome'ter or suspended particle measurements were made in

                   the.study area during storms. Water along Calf Pasture Point becomes

                   visibly turbid when waves from the northeast erode shallow silty sand.

                   It seems likely that concentrations of suspended matter may then reach

                   levels typical of an exposed English coast (50 mg/l, Newton and Grey,

                   1972) or the most turbid parts of Chesapeake Bay (over 100 mg/l, Schubel,

                   1972). It can be assumed that estuarine animals in the-Davisville area

                   are exposed to such high levels of turbidity for periods of a day or two

                   following storms.

                   POLLUTANTS

                   Water Quality. The Rhode Island Department of Health (DH) conducted a bacterio-

                   logical survey of the Quonset/Davisville area between August 1975 and

                   November 1976 (RI DH, 1976). Surface water samples were taken at 11

                   stations on 6 dates. Tests were also run on samples from streams flowing

                          TRANSMISSION, %/METER

                  ALLEN HARPOR

                 W                               S
                 W
                 LL
                 3F   10-
                     20-
                 IL
                 ow  30-3       STATION         1           2                3
                 DAVISVILLE PIERS

                                        S

                                                                  10

                 STATION                                                    6
                 FRY COVE

                STATION 7                                                 10

               Figure 4-16. Turbidity sections, I-lay 23, 1980. 11:20-12:30, Low
                            Tide 12:53 DST. Wind 5-10 knots NW "S" indicates
                            water sampling station. Stippling indicates relatively'
                            turbid water.

                                         TURNING BASIN

                      TEMPERATURE,*C                  TRANSMISSION, %/METER
                    21   20 19 IS 17                       10             5              0
            W   0                                                   1  r     9        v
            W
            U.
                10

            (L 20
            W
                                                  .. . . . . . . . .

                                 FRY CHANNEL              (STAO 7)

                      TEMPERATURE, OC                 TRANSMISSION, %/METER
            W                                                                           -0
            W       21 20      19 18 17                    10             5
            U.   0   1     9
            e
               10-
            a.
            W
               20

                     Figure 4-17 Turbidity and temperature profiles at two locations,
                                  June 24, 1980. Dashed lines show relationship of
                                  temperature and turbidity features.

                                                       4-32

                 into Fry Pond and from the Pond itself in August 1976. A summary of results

                 for stations near Davisville are given in Table 4-2 and.Figure 4-18. Fecal

                 coliform bacteria were found in very low concentrations in the Bay and Allen
                 Harbor samples. All samples had most probable numbers of less than 9/100 ml

                 (The maximum count for SA waters is 70/100 ml). A small stream entering

                 Fry Pond had high coliform levels which were reduced within the Pond. Fry

                 Cove was closed to shellfishing for a number of years because of possible

                 contamination from houses on the Dogpatch Beach bluff and the presence of

                 berthed vessels at the adjacent piers. Following a conservative policy the

                 RI Department of Health did not open the cove to shellfishing until July

                 1980, despite the abandonment,of the housing in 1974 and negat ive bacter-

                 iological tests in 1977.

                 Hydrocarbons in Sediments. There is a high to low gradient of sediment

                 hydrocarbons from the upper to lower Bay resulting from sewage effluents
                 and spills. There are additional potential sources in the Davisville area
                 including.effluents, spills, and dumping from both land and water based

                 activities. As part of the initial Quonset/Davisville impact study Brown

                 and Franklin (1977) obtained total hydrocarbon levels of 100-641 ug/g,
                 dry weight from different environments in the Davisville area (Table 473).
                      Additional hydrocarbon analyses were carried out during this study-

                 by the Graduate School of Oceanography Organic Geochemistry Laboratory.
                 The goals of these analyses were to allow comparison with data which the

                 laboratory has obtained from throughout Narragansett Bay and to gain
                 insight into the sources and makeup of materials which will be deposited

                 in the proposed dredged channels.

                       Duplicate analyses were carried out on a surface sample obtained from

                 the Davisville turning basin, June 1980. Results and preliminary di'scussion

                                                           4-33

                      Table 4-2. Water Quality Data for the Davisville Area.

                      Estuarine areas sampled on six occasions, August 10, 1975, Nov. 30, 1976.
                      Summarized from RIDH, 1976.

                                                                                              Fec
                                              Dissolved Oxygen                          ColiforWOO ml
                                            min               max.           median
                          Station        mg/l   % sat.    mg/l   % sat.   mg/l    %sat. min max median

                      5 off airport                                                       3-    3-    3.5-
                      6 Fry Cove          6.4     91      12.0   118       8.85   100     3-    9     3-

                      7 off D.V. piers                                                    3-    9     3-

                      8 off Allen H.      3.2     93       11.8  116       8.7    108     3-    9     3-

                      9 Allen Harbor                                                      3-    4     3-

                      Fry Pond areas sampled August 4, 1976, RIDH unpublished data.

                                                                            NP/100 ml
                                   Station                       total coliform         fecal coliform

                      brook to pond, Pond   and Newcomb Rd.           2300                     90

                      brook to pond, near   bld. 884                  2300                  2300

                      2411 pipe to pond                               < 23                  < 23

                      Fry Pond outlet                                  230                  < 23

                                                       WATER QUALITY
                       2,3
                                                    13 METALS IN BIVALVES

                          9                         0 METALS IN SEDIMENT
                  131.
                                                    0 HYDROCARBONS IN
                        4                     08                    SEDIMENT
                     :::13

                                               024-

                                             2T
                                                 74*,@
                                              7     %.
                                                   0

                              6

                        C)

                     CULVERT     A6
                            d!
                              06
                           98

                                                         65
                                               W,

                Figure 4-18. Station locations for water and sediment quality samples.
                             Water quality and metals in bivalves (Rhode Island
                             Department of Health) metals in sediment and hydrocarbons
                             in sediment  27A, 27 this study). Hydrocarbons in sedi-
                             ments C5-9. CRC, 1977).

                                                        4-34

                by Quinn, Requejo, and Pruell are given   in Part C of the biological impact

                report. A data summary is given in Table 4-4.

                     The concentration of total hydrocarbons from the turning basin was

                934 ug/g dry weight, significantly higher than in fine-grained natural

                sediments of surrounding areas studied by Hurtt (1978) of 359,356 and 246

                ug/g. This is also an order of magnitude higher than levels in intertidal

                sediments in Allen Harbor sampled in 1980 (Table 4-3). The high total

                hydrocarbon level in the Piers turning basin probably represents input

                of hydrocarbons from the upper bay adsorbed to fine grained organic parti-

                cles and from local sources. The pres   ence of benzotriazoles (BTAs) from

                a source on the Pawtucket River, Warwick demonstrates transport down-Bay.

                     Table 4-3. Summary of sediment hydrocarbon data in study area.
                                  (Brown and Franklin, 1977; Coastal Resources Center,
                                  1977)

                                  Total Hydrocarbons
                                                                        Percentage
                                          ug/g                     sand      silt     clay
                                   Duplicate Samples

                Allen Harbor       395           641                 3         69       28

                Channel to A.H.    196           100

                Davisville Piers   294           311                 8         53       39

                Fry Cove Channel   103           427                 8         66       26

                Quinn  Requejo and Pruell, unpub. Davisville turning basin,, sampled June
                     1980. All values Ug/g dry weight average of duplicate      analysis,

                           identified      total       total
                            aromatics   aromatics    hydrocarbon&. BTA's     phthalate

                0-10 cm        9,769       60,0          934         0,699       1.17

                                                        4-35

                       The elevated levels of specific aromatic hydrocarbons and total hydro-
                    carbons suggest additional sources in the Davisville area. Sources may
                    include combustion products in used lubricating oils and weathered fuel oil.
                    Identified aromatics were 83 times higher in the turning basin than in
                    AAlen Harbor; total hydrocarbons were 12 times higher; and BTAs only 6

                    times higher.
                        The classification scheme used in Connecticut allows dredged material
                    with less than 5000 ug/g hexane soluble fraction (oil and grease) to be
                    disposed of at sea without protective measures. The total hydrocarbon
                    level equivalent to this is higher than the 934 ug/g found in Davisville
                    sediments. Davisville sediments are "clean" when compared to polluted

                    harbors in New England, but are "dirty" compared to immediately adjacent
                    parts of Narragansett Bay. Since hydrocarbons are strongly adsorbed to
                    particulate matter, a dredging and disposal technique which controls

                    release of sediment would also contain hydrocarbon pollutants.

                    Metals in Sediments. Elutriate tests were carried out on six samples to
                    provide data for future permit applications and to provide baseline infor-
                    mation. In these tests (reported in Part C) sediment is shaken with Bay

                    water and the water tested for released metals. The test gives a more

                    realistic measure of the impact of hydraulic dredging effluent rele ase

                    than bulk sediment analysis does.

                        For five metals (barium, cadmium, chromium, mercury, and lead) all

                    test concentrations were below the limit of detectability of the analytic

                    method used. These results illustrate the low solubility of most metals

                    in sea water: chromium in mid-bay sediments is 50-400 ppm (Olsen and

                                                     4-36

                 Lee, 1979), but was less than 0.2 ppm in the tests; lead in mid-bay sediments

                 is about 100 ppm (Olson and Lee, 1979), but less than 1.6 ppm in the tests.

                     Copper was detectable in all the elutriate tests. Concentrations

                 ranged from 0.114-0.182 ppm. The absence of a relationship between concen-

                 tration and sediment type or sample location may indicate an unexplained

                 analytic problem. The EPA pollution standard for copper is 0.005 ppm.

                 Metals in Clams. It has been suggested that there could be high concentra-

                 tions of heavy metals in sediments and organisms in the Quonset/Davisville

                 area as a result of discharge of metal plating solutions (Eisler et al.
                 1977, 1978) or of dumping of metal scrap at Allen Harbor (CRC, 1977).

                 Eisler et al. found elevated metal levels in the widgeon clam (Pitar

                 morrhuana) near the former Naval Air Rework Facility outfalls at Quonset

                 Point.

                       The State Department of Health carried out a special study  of metals

                 in clams in the Davisville area between December 1976 -and June 1977.

                 Soft-shell clams were collected at four stations. In Figure 4-19-metal

                 levels of clams are shown for the stations in order of distance from the

                 Allen Harbor dump. There is no trend for any metal. Except for one Fry

                 Cove sample, all metals are below the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

                 alert levels. Alert levels have no direct relation to safety of consumption,

                 but relate to regional norms (FDA would advise the local management agency
                 of a potential concern, however, there are no legal standards for levels
                 of metals). For most metals similar levels were found in both soft-shell

                 and hard clams and levels did not vary from environment to environment.
                 This constancy suggests that metals are being regulated by physiological

                 mechanisms.

                 Refere nces

                      A complete bibliography can be found in Part C, section 5.

                                            M YA ARENARIA

                5    - - - - -                5                            0.5
                  Pb                             Cr                            Cd
                4-                            4-                           0.4-

                3-                            3-                           0.3-

                                       0
                           0
                2-                            2-                           .0.2-  0    0
           a-        0     0                                                           0     0
           0-        0     0     0     0                 0     0    0      0.1-   0    0     0
           z                                             8     a    0
           0    0                .0           0          . -   1            0
                     1     4     2     6.          1     4     2    6             1    4     2     6
           <  -      I     I     I     I           I     I     I    I
           x  60 W                          50-
                                       0
                  Cu                             Zn                          I- NEAR
           z                                                        0             DUMP
           W 40-                            40-
           L)                                                               2- YACHT
           z                                30                                    CLUB    ALLEN
           0 30-                                                                            HARBOR
           0     - - - - - - - - - --                    0                  4-NORTH
               20-         .0    0          20-    0     0     0                  COVE
                                                   0
                10-        0                  10-  0     0          0       6- D.R BEACH
                                                                            --- FDA ALERT LEVEL
                0          ---------I-----------0
                     1     2     4     6           1     2     4    6'

                   Figure 4-1-9. Metal levels in soft shell clams (Ilya arenari a)(dry weight) at
                                 four locations. (R.I. Dept. of Pealth, Dec. 19, 1976-June 1977).
                                                                    0

                                                         5-1

                   5, ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS

                   5.1 INTRODUCTION
                       Several alternate development plans were prepared during the prelim-
                   inary engineering phase of the Davisville Pier extension project. Although
                   all were technically possible, the designs vary considerably in environmental
                   impact, cost feasibility, and compatibility with Port Authority needs and
                   plans. Considerations of cost and feasibility are covered in depth in the
                   Preliminary Engineering Report by C.E. Maguire. This chapter provides a
                   detailed discussion of the environmental effects of the alternate designs

                   as well as a consideration of alternate sites and a  no-construction option,

                   in the following manner:

                        Section 5.2:   Bulkhead Construction Along Dogpatch Beach (Alternates
                                       1 and 2)  -

                        Section 5.3:   Bulkhead Between Davisville Piers and the Quonset State
                                       Airport (Alternate 3)

                        Section 5.4:   Bulkhead North of Davisville Piers (Alternate 4)

                        Section 5.5:   Improvements to Property Adjacent to Davisville Piers
                                       Retained by the United States Navy (Alternates 5 and
                                       6)

                        Section 5.6:   Actions with No Impact on the Davisville Site

                        Each Section begins with a description of a design proposal by the

                   consulting engineers, followed by the identification of terrestrial and

                   marine environmental impacts of the option, and recommendations for

                   mitigating measures. The impact assessments include the direct effects

                   caused by the construction of a wharf and associated transportation linkages

                   and indirect effects which are the result of facility operations. Many of

                   the effects of the development will occur during construction, lasting only

                                                      5 @-2

                a short time before disappearing and causing no permanent damage. Some

                effects from construction and operation, however, will make lasting, irre-

              .versible changes to the site. Measures which should be taken to reduce

                adverse temporary and permanent effects are identified in the concluding

                portion of each section.

                5.2 BULKHEAD CONSTRUCTION ALONG DOGPATCH BEACH

                Description of Action

                    Two designs were developed by C.E. Maguire for dredging portions of

                Fry Cove and constructing a bulkhead on the eastern edge of Rhode Island

                Port Authority controlled land north of the Quonset State Airport. Alter-

                nate 2, the design selected for implementation would create a 665-foot

                steel bulkhead immediately to the south of Navy owned wooden bulkhead,

                with the option to extend it further south to a maximum length of 2,400

                feet. The northern most portion of proposed development overlaps land

                presently owned by the Navy. Alternative 2 would create 18 acres of land

                with the potential for creating an additional 28 acres at a later date

                (Figure 5-1). Alternate 1 would create the entire 46 acres of new land

                all at once (Figure 5-2).

                    The proposed action, Alternate 2, will involve dredging about 13

                acres to a depth of 25 feet and removing 350,000 cubic yards of material.

                Approximately 190,000 cubic yards will be used to fill behind a 675-foot

                long sheet-pile bulkhead, creating 18 acres of land part of which is

                presently open water and the remainder a beach and marsh. The channel

                would begin at the south side of Pier 1, gradually narrowing from 700

                to 250 feet at the southern end of the new bulkhead. The southern

                termintis of the new wharf will be protected by a 700-foot long wall. of

                                                                                                                          F-1

                                                                                                                                                                                         _v-

                                                                                                                                                          %

                                                                                  D
                                                                                         a       0 0DPAT

                                                                                             ARNMOR SLOPC

                                                                                                                             NWKMEAD

                                                                              L------                                    NEW CKANKL

                                                                                                                                                      R               PIER a

                              a U a N S I I-           PORT
                                                                                                                                                        IN

                                                                                                     Figure 5-1 Selected Port Expansion Plan

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    A i I V

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     R 11 (IR

                                                                                                                                                                                         I   L
                                                                                                                           o   a F A T c

                                                                                                                                                                                                                R.

                                                                                                                                                                  Kw cHANNEL
                              1-41                                                                              r#r's covE

                                                                                                                                                                                                I --ILL

                           J

                                                                                                                             Figure 5-2 Full Development Port Expansion Plan

                                                       5-3

                  stone armor. The dredged material which is not used to create the wharf,

                  about 160,000 cubic yards, would be stockpiled on roughly 15 acres adjacent
                  to Dogpatch either for re-use if the bulkhead is extended, sold or used as
                  fill elsewhere by RIPA (Fig. 5-1). For the most part road access would

                  follow Marine Road, cutting along Greenwich Avenue to the back of the

                  wharf. A rail line would originate at the intersection of Pond and Marine

                  Roads, run parallel to the improved Marine Road about 400 feet to the

                  north until just past the Airport communication buildings where it would
                  then rejoin the new road out onto the wharf. An alternate route for both

                  road and rail connections would originate from the vicinity of the Navy

                  bulkhead.

                       The proposed action would permit extending the bulkhead further

                  south as needed, as much as 1,800 feet. The stockpiled dredged material

                  as well as newly dredged sediment would be used to fill behind the bulkhead

                  to create a wharf similar in size to that proposed in C.E. Maguire Alternate

                  1. If the entire wharf were constructed at once, approximately 700,000

                  cubic yards would be removed from the 28 acres of new channel to create a

                  total of 46 acres of new land. The southern end of the wharf would terminate

                  just north of the outlet of Fry Pond. Road and rail access would be provided

                  by extendind the alignments south along the back of the wharf. The dredged

                  channel along the additional bulkhead segment would be 250 feet wide.

                  Terrestrial Impacts

                       The construction of a new bulkhead at Dogpatch Beach with back filling

                  of dredged materials will result in major permanent alterations to the

                  existing sand beach, dunes and marsh, to several of the presently abandoned

                  houses above the beach, and to the old fields on the uplands to the rear

                  of the property (Figure 5-3).

                                    D 0 G P A    C H

                                                     Broadway

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

                                                                                                NAVY BULKHEAD

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

                             F R Y

                           C 0 V E

                           Figure 5-3 Changes to Dogpatch from Design 2,Incremental Development
                           Le_y to symbo I s
                           Doypatch boundary           Marsh to be fillod +f-+
                           Existing shorcline                                             @7
                           New shoreline               Water to be filled              N
                           New road
                           New rail

                                                    5-4

                    Bulkhead development and back fill (both Alternatives 1 and 2) will
                                                                                   i

               cause the complete elimination of the small marsh. In order to properly

               level the new land in back of the bulkhead, dredged materials will have

               to be placed over the top of the marsh, and elevated up to the existing
               road (Broadway) in back of the marsh. This would cover the marsh with
               approximately 4-6 feet of material and bury the culvert which is presently
               supplying freshwater to the marsh. In order to allow continued freshwater
               discharge, a culvert would be installed, through the existing marsh prior
               to covering it with fill. This would permit stream drainage to continue
               through the new bulkhead wall and out into the Bay. The elimination of the
               salt marsh will result in a decreage in habitat for those species which
               require the salt marsh environment for feeding and shelter. Sessile
               animals such as bivalves, crustaceans, and tube worms present in the

               wetland at the time of burial will be killed. Adult birds will escape but

               will have to go elsewhere for feeding and nesting grounds.
                    Both Alternatives 1 and 2 will heavily impact the sandy portion of
               Dogpatch Beach, with Alternative 2 burying the northern half and Alternative
               I totally eliminating all beach frontage. Dunes will be covered up to:the
               upland plateau elevation. The existing concrete seawall in front of the
               cottages will also be buried. The loss of the sandy beach, whether partial
               as in Alternative 2 or total as in Alternative 1, will bring a reduction in
               the avai lable sand beach area within Narragansett Bay. However, Dogpatch

               Beach has not been accessible to the public for more than forty years, and
               is slated by the Port Authority for industrial and commercial develo pment

               that would preclude general public access to the site.

                                                      5-5
                      C. E. Maguire proposed that rail and highway access to the newly con-

                  structed wharf in Alternative 1 or.2 be provided from the west through the

                  Dogpatch parcel. However, they noted that extending the road bed and rail

                  line from the Navy retained property just north of the bulkhead would be

                  less expensive. Removal or demolition of several unoccupied houses will

                  be required to construct a new road under the proposal for Alternate 2.

                  Site preparation prior to any development of Dogpatch would involve removal

                  of most, if not all existing unoccupied residential structures. The con-

                  struction of a rail line across the upland through the open fields and

                  shrubby areas at the southern edge of the woods will require removal of

                  vegetative cover and top soils along its entire length. A berm would be

                  constructed across low spots on Dogpatch in order to construct the rail

                  line. If hydraulic dredging is used, a dike about 10 feet high may be

                  needed to contain surplus dredged materials on about 15 acres of land.

                  The pile should be landscaped to prevent erosion'by wind and rain,

                       Acting nesting areas for numerous pairs of Eastern Meadowlarks in

                  the upland meadow along with other birds and small mammals which presently

                  live in Dogpatch will be displaced or disturbed by a renewal of active

                  use of the site.

                  Aquatic IE!pacts_

                       The two plans for dredging and bulkheading in front of Dogpatch Beach

                  Alternates 1 and 2 will have similar effects. Portions of a shallow sandy

                  platform at the foot of the beach will be permanently eliminated. This

                  area has small patches of soft-shell clams Q@ya arenaria), a few oysters

                  as well as several species of bottom animals eaten by fish and wading birds

                  compared to elsewhere in Narragansett Bay. If development is not carried

                  the full length of the beach, there will be little change in the remaining

                                                   5-6

               area, although the harvest of bivalves will be restricted by the Department

               of Health within 1000 feet of the wharf. Oysters on rocky bottom near the
               'Fry Pond culvert would be killed by shallow burial only if effluent sediments
               accumulated there. Bulkhead construction will also eliminate a small area

               with depths of 2-5 feet which has quantities of hard clams available to

               recreational diggers with rakes or tongs.

                   The areas which would be dredged to channel depth would eliminate

               either 13 (Alternate 2) or 41 (Alternate 1) acres of estuarine bottom with

               present depths of 9 to 10 feet. The area is presently used for the harvest

               of hard clams. In addition other bottom animals which are major food of

               bottom fish and diving ducks will be killed by dredging. As a result, other

               species less valuable to man or bottom feeding animals will colonize the

               soft sediments that will accumulate bottom of the dredged channel.

                    An important factor in the determination of specific aquatic impacts,

               is the construction sequence, which is not specified in the preliminary

               engineering report. Individual contractors will have different approaches

               to dredging and bulkhead construction. The major concern is the manner

               in which the slurry of water and sediment created by hydraulic dredging

               is dewatered and released to the Cove. The longer the slurry is retained

               behind a dike or weir, the clearer the effluent released to the Cove will

               be. The placement of the weir close to the existing channel will cause

               sediment to settle in the channel, which already is a poor habitat for

               many of the bottom organism desired by man and bottom feeding birds and

               fish. Bottom animals on the edge of the dredged channel will be subject

               to burial slumping of the banks. During dredging, organisms will be
               subject to turbidity from the effluent. Suspended sediment concentration,
               however,'is expected to be below lethal levels for fish and bottom animals

                                                       5-7

                  even at the effluent outlet. In much of the Cove, suspended sediment will

                  be at levels which will temporarily inhibit feeding of shellfish and zoo-
                  plankton and reduce growth and survival of shellfish larvae for the duration
                  of dredging. Motile animals will be able to recover from shallow burial

                  (inches) by material settling from the effluent.

                      A small increase in the silt/clay component of sediments in the mid-

                  depth area of Fry Cove will not-cause a radical change in the species

                  presently found there; the bottom fauna will remain similar where the

                  silt/clay percent ranges from 5 to 39 percent. The combination of mechan-

                  ical disturbance and change to finer sediments could induce setting of the

                  flopportunistic" species, Mulinea lateralis (coot clam) and AT2@@,lisca,

                  abdita (an amphipod crustacean).

                       Deeper areas (20-30 feet deep) surround Fry Cove to the north, east,

                  and south. These are floored with fine grained sediments and when sampled

                  in March 1980, had an "impoverished" bottom fauna. Fine grained sediment

                  from dredging effluent will be deposited in these areas depending on the

                  outlet location. Raising the elevation of the closed basin in Fry Cove

                  channel and lowering the concentration of organic matter on any of the

                  deep bottoms through dredging induced sedLmentation, could cause estab-

                  lishment of faunal communities in these areas.

                       Available evidence suggests that fish movements will be unaffected

                  by moderate turbidity in Fry Cove (see Part C). Fish may actually be

                  attracted to the disturbed bottom. Following completion of dredging, winter

                  flounder will be seasonally concentrated along the slopes of the new channel.

                       The limited volume of organic sediments which will be dredged will

                  release a small amount of oxygen-consuming and toxic compounds.  These

                  might be detectable in oxygen-poor bottom water.

                                                       5-8

                     Suspended sediments and dissolved substances released into Fry Cove

                 will be reduced in volume and significantly diluted before reaching the

                 area north of the Davisville Piers and will have no measurable effects on

                 hard clams or finfish there.

                 Mitigating Measures

                 Terrestrial Impacts: Although bulkhead construction and dredge and fill

                 activities will have severe impacts on the beach and marsh system at Dog-

                 patch, steps can be taken which can help to lessen consequences of these

                 impacts. Any dredged materials stored temporarily at an upland location
                 should be quickly covered or planted so as to lessen the potential for

                 erosion from wind or storm water runoff. In order to further decrease

                 erosion potential following.final implementation of site development at
                 Dogpatch, a sediment erosion control plan should be undertaken for the
                 upland area following the guidelines of the Soil Conservation Service.
                     Although it would be impossible to entirely compensate for the loss

                 of the beach and marsh system at Dogpatch, it may be possible to provide

                 similar habitat elsewhere near the site through beach nourishment and

                 marsh construction. This would be viable only if the surplus dredged

                 material was not stockpiled for future use. It would appear that the

                 area in and around Allen Harbor has potential, particularly for building

                 a marsh of similar size. This possibility should be examined during the
                 final design phase of the port expansion proposal, prior to construction.

                     Use of the alternate road and rail route across retained Navy

                 property examined by C.E. Maguire would avoid upland disturbances as a
                 direct result of port expansion. However, the site is already slated for
                 industrial re-use regardless of port development at Davisville, making

                                                        5-9

                   road improvements necessary. A vegetative buffer and and fencing would help

                   reduce the visual and noise impacts of expanded service base operations to

                   the adjacent Navy residential compound. Fencing along the proposed upland

                   rail line would maintain a separation between commercial activity to the

                   south and the woods and Navy residences to the north. The growth of

                   general aviation at Quonset State Airport, and the recent relocation of

                   the Rhode Island Air National Guard to Quonset constitutes a major source

                   of noise to the area greatly overshadowing that produced by the trucks,

                   equipment and vessels engaged in port activities at Davisville.

                   Aquatic Impacts: Although several acres of shellfish habitat will be lost,

                   the remaining stock of hard clams could be removed before dredging begins,

                   to reduce the economic loss. A hydraulic dredge should be considered for

                   complete removal of clams including sub-legal sizes, which could be.

                   transplanted elsewhere.

                       Both summer and winter dredging has advantages and disadvantages.

                   Summer dredging may reduce mortality of animals by burial and allow better

                   control of all aspects of the dredging and monitoring program, and avoid

                   interaction with spawning winter flounder. Winter dredging reduces possible

                   effects of oxygen consumption in deep water, increases dispersion of sedi-

                   ment and dissolved substances, avoids interaction with planktonic larvae,

                   and avoids interference with recreational uses.

                        Release of dredging effluent near the present dredged channel which

                   already has a soft bottom of low productivity, will reduce surface turbidity

                   and prevent deposition of sediment in mid-depth areas where hard clams are

                   present. The slowest rate of dredging consistent with economic operation

                   will result in an increased retention time of the dredged effluent, helping

                                                     5-10

                to reduce the suspended matter levels released in effluent. A review of

                the dredging sequence at the time of construction should be made to insure

                that a reasonable effort is made to control turbidity.

                    IEven with full development of the Fry Cove Shore, the central portion

                of the cove should be able to continue to be used for shell fishing and

                shpport finfish and migrating waterfowl. The present circulation of water

                into the Cove from the West Passage and the removal of find grained sediment

                by wave action will continue to maintain the productivity of the bottom.

                The installation of a storm drainage system to collect wharf runoff in a

                central location should be considered as a means of aiding the clean up

                of accidental land spills, particularly if large amounts of petroleum or

                other potential pollutants will be handled at the site.

                5.3 BULKHEAD BETWEEN DAVISVILLE PIERS AND THE QUONSET STATE
                     AIRPORT

                Description of Action

                    C.E. Maguire Design 3 proposes a maximum berth and land filling design.

                A bulkhead would be constructed from the corner of the present Navy bulkhead

                3,100 feet to the southeast, connecting with the steel bulkhead that forms
                the northern edge of the Airport, close to its northeast corner (Figure 5-4).

                A 25-foot channel would be created by dredging 40 acres of Fry Cove. About

                120 acres of new land would be created by placing 4.1 million cubic yards

                of material behind the bulkhead. Only 1.2 million cubic yards of material

                would be provided by dredging the channel. The remaining 2.9 million cubic

                yards would have to be borrowed, perhaps from other dredging projects in
                Narragansett Bay as an alternative to ocean disposal. The Fry Pond outlet

                would be channeled through a 2,200 foot long culvert extension. No land

                use scheme for this alternate was prepared. Aside from technical problems

                                    V.
                                                                                                                                    ?

                                                                                                                              ji t'

                                                                                                         IS

                                                                                                                               OJIL      j
                                                                                            DOOPATCH

                                                                   . . . . . . . . . .

                                                                                                                No.

                                                 v

                                                                                   ZT

                                                                                                                                                         VIEW a
                                                                                                         NEW CHANNEL

                                                                                @X-

                                                                                                                           Y'

                                                                          T!.Z.

                   Ir                               FORT
                                 QUONSET        Al
                                                                                                       PI,

                                                                                                                                                                                WON 0

                                                                                                                                                                                C.

                                                                                       Figure 5-4 Maximum Expansion Design

                                                       5-11

                  in creating the large land area, information developed by C.E. Maguire does

                  not substantiate any need for a facility of this size.

                  Terrestrial Impacts

                       The impacts resulting from the implementation of C.E. Maguire Design

                  3 would be similar to those expected in designs 1 and 2 (Section 5.2).

                  Dogpatch Beach and its wetland would be eliminated through burial by dredged

                  material. Land uses and transportation access in the upland Dogpatch area

                  adjacent to Marine Road and the wooded stream would be similar to designs

                  1 and 2.

                  Aquatic Impacts

                       Construction of a bulkhead across Fry Cove will eliminate both the

                  shallow areas described in Section 5.2 and the productive bottom in the

                  center of the cove which has commercially harvestable quantities of hard

                  clams as well as bottom animals useful as food for fish and waterfowl.

                       The remaining undisturbed bottom will be subject to a larger volume

                  of suspended matter over a longer period than with the other options.

                  More suspended matter and dissolved substances would reach Allen Harbor

                  and Calf Pasture Beach because of the larger size of project and its

                  location further out in the Cove.

                       The best established techniques for filling a disposal area with

                  spoil from a distant area is bucket dredging into scows, transport to

                  the disposal area, dumping into deep water next to the disposal site, and

                  hydraulic dredging into the containment area. The additional material

                  handling will produce more suspended sediment than the aquatic disturbances

                  described in Section 5.2.

                                                     5-12

                5.4 BULKHEAD NORTH OF DAVISVILLE PIERS

                Description of Action

                    An increase in berthing and supporting land at Davisville could be
                achieved by dredging a channel and constructing a wharf from the mouth of

                Allen Harbor southeast to the northeast corner of Pier 2 (Figure 5-5).

                This option, presented by C.E. Maguire as Alternate 4, would expand the
                land area of the portion of Davisville controlled by the Rhode Island

                Port Authority and presently leased to various firms supporting the
                petroleum industry's outer continental shelf exploration program in the

                North Atlantic. A mixture of bulkhead and pile supported deck structures

                would be required to create 2,300 feet of berthing. Incremental imple-
                mentation of this scheme was not examined. About 22 areas of bottom would

                be dredged, producing 710,000 cubic yards of material which would be com-
                pletely used in creating 26 acres of new land. The bulkhead would be
                protected on its northwest end at the entrance to Allen Harbor by a 400
                foot sloping wall of stone. The adjacent Davisville Piers area is already

                largely paved and served by rail spurs.

                Terrestrial Impacts
                     C.E. Maguire Alternate 4 would avoid the terrestrial impacts to the
                Dogpatch area likely to occur from designs 1, 2 and 3 since it involves
                construction of pier and bulkhead in a totally different location north
                of existing pier 2. Likewise, the existing open water area at Fry Cove

                will be unaffected with the implementation of Alternate 4.

                     Most of the land adjacent to the newly constructed pier in Alternate
                4 is already paved. It is used as supplementary storage of equipment by
                offshore drilling companies located on Davisville Piers. The immediate

                                                                                                                          L 2@:@,

                                                                                                                                                                     AIWOR SLOPE

                                                                              006PATCH

                                                                                                             jF40

                                                                                                                                                                      Sma"Em
                                                                                                                                                  r..a
                                                                                                                                                VC,
                                                                                                                                                      W'@
                                                                     FRY'S COVE                                                                   r

                                                                                                                                                    LI@W
                                                                                                                                                   Z

                                                                                                                                                            V
                                                                                                                                       PIER a

                           QUONSET         PONT

                                                                Figure 5-5. Bulkhead North of Davisville Piers

                                                       5-13

                   shoreline consists of marsh and sandy beach, but an extensive parking and

                   work area begins just a few feet back from the shore. The.Davisville Piers

                   site is predominately filled land, created by the Navy using material

                   obtained from channel dredging along with soil trucked in from outside the

                   site. The area was graded with a slight slope towards the Bay for surface

                   drainage, and then paved with asphalt. A lack of maintenance of the

                   pavement is evident by the effects of weathering and cracking in many

                   areas, which has allowed plants to grow and increase the rate of pavement

                   breakup. The adoption of Alternate 4 would result in greatly increased use

                   of the area and would probably require repaving prior to a heavy increase

                   in use.

                       Adjacent to the north side of Pier 2 is a marsh of less than 3 acres,

                   which has formed between the pier and a small stone groin. This marsh

                   would be covered with dredged material if design 4 is adopted. This marsh

                   is already highly exposed and is prone to damage from periodic overwash

                   by sand.

                       North of the stone groin and extending northwesterly towards Allen

                   Harbor entrance channel a sandy beach has formed. The sand probably comes

                   from the extensive beach at Calf Pasture Point. Unless attempts were made

                   to recover the sand prior to bulkhead and pier construction, this small

                   beach would also be covered with dredged material.

                   Aq.!AE@tic Impacts

                        The proposal to dredge a channel north of Davisville Piers and con-

                   struct a bulkheaded containment area partially in shallow water will have

                   effects similar to those discussed for alternatives 1, 2 and 3 in Fry

                   Cove. The shallow area north of the piers has been considerably modified

                                                   5-14

               by construction and dredging and may not have reached equilibrium with wave

               currents, indicating that rapid sedimentation would occur in the dredged

               channel. A low density of soft-shell clams and other bottom animals, by

               comparison to Allen Harbor, will be eliminated by construction in intertidal

               and shallow subtidal areas.

                    The area in which dredging will take place is similar in depth and

               sediment type to the central portion of Fry Cove with the exception that

               it has undergone continuous disturbance from hard clam fishing. Fishing

               effort has probably reduced the average size of hard clams and changed

               the makeup of bottom communities by favoring faster growing "opportunistic"

               species. Disturbance of the bottom by dredging may actually favor hard

               clams by inducing setting and reducing the number of competitors and

               predators.

                    Suspended sediment from dredging effluents and resuspended dredge

               material will add to the turbitity of Calf Pasture Point area. Suspended

               sediment will be deposited in the deep parts of Allen Harbor, in the dredged

               basin, and the deeper parts of the West Passage. During the incoming tide

               turbidity may be visable along Cal.f Pasture Beach where recreational shell-

               fishing and swimming takes place. Estuarine sediment (material deposited

               since glaciation) is probably deeper north of the piers than the thin venier

               at Fry Cove. Therefore more oxygen consuming compounds, nutrients, and

               possible more fine grained sediment would be released from this sediment

               than from sandy glacial outwash. Some pollutants are present in surface

               sediment at the mouth of Allen Harbor. These do not reach toxic levels,

               will be largely retained through adsorption to sediment in the bulkheaded

               area,

                                                        5-15

                      Dredging would probably not affect the-movements of winter flounder

                  into Allen Harbor. However, industrial development north of the piers

                  could interfere with commercial and recreational shellfishing if grounds

                  are closed by the state. The potential of pollution entering Allen

                  Harbor from an oil or chemical spill during operations at Davisville

                  may lead to contamination affecting the future value of Allen Harbor for

                  shellfishing and aquaculture. Industrial development is compatible with

                  use of the harbor for marina operation, however, since channel improvements

                  north of the piers would replace a portion of the present shallow and

                  narrow entrance. Department of Environmental Management Policy will create

                  a closure zone for shellfishing roughly 1000 feet bayward of the new

                  wharf.

                  Mitigating Measures

                       Release of dredging effluent near or into the present turning basin

                  would reduce the effects of suspended material on shellfishing and swimming

                  as well as the visibility of the sediment plume. Winter dredging would

                  avoid interaction with recreational use of the area. Clams could be removed

                  from the areas to be dredged. Control of all land and vessel discharges

                  and release of preservatives from dock structures is, more important north

                  of the Piers than in Fry Cove because of the extensive use of the area for

                  shellfishing, and the need to avoid additional pollution.
                  5.5 IMPROVEMENTS TO PROPERTY ADJACENT TO DAVISVILLE PIERS
                        RETAINED BY THE UNITED STATES NAVY

                  Description of Action

                       Expansion of the capacity of Davisville Piers to accommodate increased

                  offshore oil service or related shipping activity could be achieved by im-

                  proving the Navy owned wharf immediately adjacent to Pier 1, and then

                                                    5-16

                expanding the berth and operating area by building a parallel earth or
                pile supported pier. These variations are presented as Alternates 5, 6,
                and 6A in the Preliminary Engineering, Davisville Pier report and supple-
                mentary progress report (Figure 5-6 and 5-7). Alternate 5 would create
                a new bulkhead 1,300 feet long in front of the existing decayed wharf,
                and provide for a 25-foot dredge depth. A stone armored slope would be
                built at the southern end, creating 1.5 acres of land. A surplus of
                approximately 175,000 yards of sediment would be dredged from the 10-acre
                new channel and require stockpiling. A part of the upland portion of the
                Navy controlled site, which consists of more than 40 acres of open land,
                would be required for structures, storage and movement of vehicles and

                equipment.
                    Expansion of the capacity of this new bulkhead could be accomplished
                by constructing a pier parallel to the existing piers I and 2. C.E.
                Maguire suggested an earth or pile supported pier 300 feet wide and 1000
                feet long creating 7 acres of new area and 2,300 feet of berthing. The
                dredged channel would be expanded an additional 15 acres to provide access
                to both sides of the pier, creating an additional 370,000 yards of surplus
                material for the piling supported pier (Alternate 6) or only 170,000
                additional yards for the earth filled pier (Alternate 6A).

                Terrestrial Impacts
                    Alternatives 5, 6 and 6A will result in surplus amounts of dredged
                material being produced as a result of dredging in front of the Navy Pier
                because only limited amounts of dredged material will be necessary as
                fill material. Design 5 will produce 175,000 cubic yards and design 6
                370,000 cubic yards of material which would have to be stored off site.

                                                                                                                                                         1,             AI

                                                                                                                                                 ,>

                                                                                                                             L
                                                                                                                                                                       lK

                                                                                                                                                                                               V,

                                                                                      COOPATCH

                                                                       rar's cove
                                                                                                                          P Til.

                                                                                               ARNOOR SLO
                                                                                                                    DULKK!AD-,,
                                                                                                  New CHAMN

          ty

                              QUON31T       Al PONT

                                                                                                601

                                                                      Figure 5-6. Reconstruction of Navy Bulkhead.

                                                                       1, O-p           a
                                                                         OPATCH         0

                                                                                                      F  A.y

                                                          For's COVE          ARMOR SLOPE
                                                                                                   P$

                                                                                              MIW_.RUL HEAD-

                                                                                     NEW PIER--r-
                                                                                  NEW CHARMEL-j-                           plan 2

                                                                                                L ---- J,

                                                                                                             ANNE L

                           QUONSET    AtOPORT

                       T

                 I-J
                                                                                                          .@y

                                                                    Figure 5-7. Expansion of Navy Bulkhead.

                                                       5-17

                  An earth pier, 6A, would reduce the storage requirement to 170,000 cubic

                  yards. Several problems would be created if the surplus material is moved

                  to an upland storage area nearby. The use of hydraulic dredging will

                  produce a slurry of sediment and water. A 16 acre containment area for

                  dewatering must be constructed at the storage site. If a nearshore disposal

                  site at Dogpatch is selected (Figure 5-6, letter D) some adverse effects

                  on wildlife will occur (particularly small mammals and songbirds) since

                  there is moderate wildlife useage presently at this site. Disposal at

                  Site M near Marine Road (largely an old asphalt parking lot) will have

                  little potential impact on wildlife or Fry Cove but could impact Davol

                  Pond if the material is not properly contained during dewatering. The use

                  of a clamshell dredge would mean that little or no containment would be

                  required at either site.

                       A potential problem with both sites and dredging techniques will be

                  the blowing of surface sediments once they have dried, creating a nuisance

                  for workers and equipment nearby. Dredged material will present little

                  threat to groundwater resources through the natural leaching of salts or

                  contaminants because groundwater flows at both potential disposal areas

                  are towards Narragansett Bay, and not inland towards the Potowomut aqui-

                  fer (Coastal Resources Center, 1977).

                       Small amounts of the dredged material will be utilized as fill

                  beside the existing Navy bulkhead causing shoreline modifications. This

                  fill will bury the small cobble beach area which is utilized infrequently

                  by feeding shorebirds. This fill will be retained by the construction of

                  an armor slope on the south side. Depending on the height of the armor

                  slope and the fill behind it, some filling or infringement on the beach

                                                       5-18

                or marsh is probable. After construction, it is likely that some beach

                erosion will occur where the armor slope meets the sandy beach. This

                could result in a change to flow patterns into and from the marsh which

                can easily be avoided.

                     Active use of the Navy pier areas will result in some disturbance to

                the adjacent Navy housing just inland of the piers. The greatest effect

                will occur in the form of noise, but some impacts on air quality from

                engine exhausts or particulate matter could occur depending on the range

                and intensity of uses. The present privacy of the Navy housing area

                will likely be somewhat disrupted by active use of the pier.

                     There could be some indirect effects on the small salt marsh from

                runoff or drainage from the paved surface of the pier. Runoff into the

                marsh could have some negative impact, particularly due to the contami-

                nants present in surface runoff from such areas (oils, toxic wastes, etc.).

                Some disturbance to wildlife usage of the marsh will occur and may diminish

                its value to nesting birds.

                Aquatic Impacts

                     Dredging in front of the Navy Pier will deepen a sandy bottom which

                slopes from depths of 3 to 12 feet to the edge of the present dredged

                channel. Commercially harvestable densities of hard clams found throughout

                this area will be eliminated and will not recolonize the dredged channel.

                Bottom organisms used by fish and ducks for food will also be eliminated

                in the newly dredged area  . The location of concentrations of winter

                flounder will move from the present channel edge to the new edge.

                     Dredge effluent from bulkhead and stockpile areas will temporarily

                create turbidity which will not cause mortality of bottom animals or

                fish, but which may for the duration of dredging slow the rate of growth

                                                       5-19

                  of planktonic larvae and zooplankton in the immediate area.

                  Shallow burial (less than a few inahes) from effluent

                  sedimentation or leakage from the bulkhead will kill attached barnacles

                  and a few oysters and mussels, but will not be severe enough to prevent

                  most species from reaching the surface. Organisms such as hard clams

                  buried more deeply by slope failure will not survive. (A discussion of

                  the ability of various marine organisms to recover from burial is provided

                  in Part C.) Mechanical disturbance of the bottom and sedimentation from

                  dredging effluent in Fry Cove may result in an increase in bottom species

                  adapted for rapid growth in the absence of competition. These could

                  include species with value to man (hard clams) those having the ability to

                  stabilize the bottom (tube building polychaetes and amphipods), and species

                  valuable for fish and duck food (amphipods, coot clams, rut clam).

                       Sedimentation from dredging effluent will further result in a temporary

                  increase of the silt clay fraction at all depths in Fry Cove. At shallow

                  and mid-depths this may result in small changes in the relative abundance

                  of the present fauna. Fine sediments deposited in natural and dredged

                  channels will remain there. Species of low economic evalue will colonize

                  these sediments.

                       While organic sediments at the edge of the present channel are being

                  dredged there will be release of oxygen-consuming compounds as well as

                  hydrogen sulfide and ammonia into the water. The released volumes of these

                  substances would have little effect on marine organisms except within the

                  containment areas and possibly in bottom waters which are isolated by

                  vertical temperature stratification in the summer.

                        The presence of shipping, industrial development, and use of toxic

                  preservatives on structures will lower or threaten to lower the water

                                                        5-20

                 quality in Fry Cove. Department of Environmental Management policy will
                 create a closure zone for shellfishing roughly 1000 feet bayward of the

                 wharf.

                 Mitigating Measures
                 Terrestrial: Problems associated with runoff of dredged material into the@

                 Bay, pond or any lower elevated area could be largely corrected by proper
                 initial placement and useage of dredged material and if clamshell dredges
                 were used instead of pumping the material hydraulically. If dredged

                 material were used to construct a landscaped playing field or marsh, this

                 would help solve the problem of dried sediments being blown around or
                 washed away. Careful consideration of marsh sites should occur during

                 the final design phase of the project.
                     By extending and curving the armor slope around towards the pier it
                 may permit additional amounts of dredged materials to be contained and
                 lessen the potential for direct intrusion onto or into the marsh surface.
                 However, some long term beach erosion adjacent to the armor slop may

                 still occur.
                     Although retention of complete privacy at the residential area is
                 impossible with renewed pier use, it is feasible to provide additional
                 buffering by the use of vegetative barriers, particularly rapidly growing
                 conifers. The marsh might be given added protection by fencing along the
                 northern edge prior to construction activity at the pier, and also by
                 strict drainage control that could direct all surface runoff away from

                 the marsh.
                 Aquat     Hard clams can be removed before dredging is carried out.
                 Intensive fishing since Fry Cove was opened in June 1980 have already
                 reduced the population. Dredging in the winter will reduce potential

                                                       5-21

                   effects on planktonic larvae, increase dispersion of suspended sediment

                   and dissolved substances from spoil effluent, and avoid possible low

                   oxygen values in deep water. Summer dredging will reduce mortality to

                   bottom animals by burial since many are more,active at temperatures greater

                   than 100C. If containment area effluent is released near channels there

                   will be a reduction in both visible turbidity and the deposition of sediment

                   on the shallower areas that are most valuable for hard clams and fish food

                   organi sms*

                   5.6 ACTIONS WITH NO IMPACT ON THE DAVISVILLE SITE

                   Description.of Action

                       There are two courses of action which would have no effect on the

                   vicinity of Davisville Piers. First the Rhode Island Port Authority

                   could construct facilities for expanded petroleum exploration service

                   operations at another site in Rhode Island waters which it either controls

                   or could acquire an interest. The remaining choice available to the Port

                   Authority is not to make any new investments in port activity in support

                   of petroleum exploration.

                   Alternate Sites. There are few waterfront locations in Narragansett Bay

                   which have enough developable land adjacent to at least 20 feet of pro-

                   tected water to be of value to companies supporting offshore oil
                   development. Much of Narragansett Bay is navigable by supply boat. A

                   channel with a depth of 40 feet follows the East Passage of Narragansett

                   Bay up to the Providence River. The West Passage of the Bay has a

                   natural navigable depth greater than 20 feet and a 30 foot or greater

                   dredged channel serving Quonset/Davisville. The channel to Fall River

                   has a depth of 35 feet. Smaller coves and harbors are served by shallow

                   channels suitable for recreational craft. However, waterfront along these

                                                    5@-22@

                navigational channels which possesses a potential for accommodating additional
                marine transportation use and could meet the requirements of the project is

                confined to Providence Harbor, and the former Navy fueling piers at Melville,

                in Portsmouth. Other sites such as Coddington Cove, the Quonset Carrier

                Pier, the Tiverton shipping area, Newport and Jamestown Harbors are occupied

                by active uses, have little land available, and are in many instances
                already experiencing overcrowding from competing marine interests (Figure 5-8).

                    Providence Harbor does have potential for increasing its neobulk and

                containerized cargo handling an activity similar to that conducted at bases

                which serve offshore oil exploration and development (New England River

                Basins Commission, 1980, Ports and Harbors Study, Draft, Boston MA). For

                example, the Municipal Wharf, owned by the City of Providence, has six
                deep berths used for export of scrap steel and import of lumber, fuels,
                steel automobiles, liquids, and chemicals. Other privately operated

                terminals handle petroleum and some other cargo. Due to the presence of

                the 40 foot channel, terminal operators and related port users have con-

                centrated on increasing shipping activity by building berths to accommodate

                larger vessels, attracting new cargoes, and developing the export trade.

                The shallow draft of the offshore drilling service vessels and the volume

                of materials handled relative to the needs of other port users makes a

                service base operation an inefficient use of the Providence Harbor water-

                front. The lack of interest in attracting service base operations to

                Providence reflects this fact.

                    The Melville Industrial Area, owned by the Rhode Island Port Authority,

                is an irregular strip of land of some 50 acres located on the western

                shore of Portsmouth. It was formerly used as a fueling and maintenance

                                   PROVIDENCE

                                                              0      5      io km

                                              03

                             Figure 5-8 Alternate Port Expansion Sites in Narragansett Bay
                                        1. Port of Providence  2. Davisville
                                        3. Melville            4%. Coddington Cove

                                                       5-23

                   pier and boat basin by the Navy. To the north is Navy retained land and
                   docking facilities, and a large privately operated marina. The Melville

                   site includes two piers 25 and 50 wide respectively which are 1000 feet
                   long, and served by 35 foot deep channels. Neither pier is suitable for

                   service base operations since there is very little room on the piers

                   for vehicle movements. A shorefront wharf, of which the State owns 600

                   feet, has less than 16 feet of water.

                       The Rhode Island Port Authority has slated the entire Melville site

                   for industrial development and is in the process of considering a variety

                   of proposed uses. These include a grain shipment and milling operation,

                   commercial fishing offloading and a home port for a portion of the Rhode

                   Island fishing fleet. It is conceivable that a wharf of good depth and

                   useful size could be created by bulkheading and dredging the shoreline

                   to the south of the piers. Some 20 to 25 acres of land, most of it

                   existing, could be allocated to service base operations.

                       Development of Melville is proceeding concurrently with Davisville

                   Piers. Use of Melville as an offshore oil service base, however, would

                   conflict with established Port Authority policies. Based on extensive

                   planning studies the Port Authority has already decided that offshore

                   oil'service companies should be concentrated at Davisville and that other

                   marine industry firms would best be located at Melville. In addition

                   several drawbacks exist to the location of oil service facilities at

                   Melville, including its limited land area, exposure to prevailing south-

                   westerly winds, distance from major highways, and isolation from the

                   existing service base operations at Davisville.

                   No Construction. The Rhode Island Port Authority could decide that it

                   will not construct the 675 foot bulkhead proposed as C,E. Maguire Alter-,

                   nate 2, with its provision for incremental expansion up to 2,300 feet,

                                                    5-24

               or undertake any work to increase facilities for use by the companies

               servicing offshore oil exploration and production platforms. By doing

               so, the marine and shoreline impacts of dredging and bulkhead construction

               described in sections 5.2 to 5.5 would not occur. Although marine envir-

               onment impacts to Davisville and Dogpatch would be avoided, the use of
               the Dogpatch Beach parcel for any other industrial or commercial development
               is likely to have some effects on the woods and stream which feed the

               small salt marsh, as described in Section 5.3, including demolition, site

               preparation, road improvements, and construction of buildings and parking

               lots.

                                                     PART B

                                            DAVISVILLE PORT EXPANSION

                                                  ASSESSMENT

                                                    GEOLOGY

                                        Prepared by R. L. McMaster and

                                               S.M. Greenlee

                    The preparation of this report was financed in part by funds from the Office
                    of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
                    U.S. Department of Commerce, administered by the ENERGY OFFICE, EXECUTIVE
                    DEPARTMENT, GOVERNOR"S OFFICE, STATE OF RHODE ISLAND.

                     Part B                                                                    Page
                     Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .         1

                     Scope and Significance   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         1

                     Procedures  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          2

                          Field Operations

                          Laboratory Techniques

                     Results  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           3

                          Shoreline  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          3

                          Bathymetry   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          4

                          Bottom Surface    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         5

                          Sediment   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          5

                          Bedrock    . . . .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .         6

                          Overburden    . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .        6

                     References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          8

                     Appendix A    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .          9

                 List of Figures

                 1. Tracklines, Seismic Reflection Survey

                 2. Tracklines, Bathymetric and Side Scan Survey

                 3. Bathymetry

                 4. Bottom Character Based on Side Scan Sonar Interpretation

                 5. Surface Sand Distribution

                 6. Bedrock Depths in Time Un its

                 7. Bedrock Depths in Feet

                 8. Sediment Overburden Thickness

                                               Introduction

                     A geological survey was conducted on the beaches and adjacent near-
                 shore bottom within the general area defined by Calf Pasture Pt. and the
                 airport bulkhead (Fig. 1). In the offshore zone, the investigation was
                 limited to the bottom between the 6 and 26 foot contours but including the
                 dredged channels.

                                           Scope and Significance

                      The purpose of the surveywas to (a) describe the general beach conditions;
                 (b) determine the character of the nearshore bottom surface and overlying
                 suspended sediment based upon soundings, side viewing sonar, bottom samples,
                 and transmissometer readings; (c) describe the morphology and position of the
                 bedrock surface; (d) ascertain the thickness and general composition of the
                 overburden above the bedrock; and (e) assess the geologic environmental impact
                 to the area relative to bulkhead installation and bottom dredging.

                      The findings are used in the following manner. For the shoreline, beach
                 accretion and erosion sites are identified and sand transport, longshore and
                 onshore-offshore, is inferred. In the nearshore, the bottom relief is mapped
                 as well as the general distribution of sand, mud and suspended sediment. These
                 results permit the evaluation of processes responsible for sediment erosion,
                 transportation,and deposition under present environmental conditions and the
                 prediction of sediment responses after dredging and pier construction.

                      The bedrock surface is mapped so that its attitude, shape and relief
                 are determined. These.data are correlated with the borings made by C.E. Maguire,

                 Inc.

                      Finally, these results are assessed relative to the geologic impact on the

                 nearshore environment due to bulkhead installation, a dredging operation and
                 deepening of the bottom.

                                                  -2-

                                             Procedures

                 .1. Field operations: R/V Schock was used to obtain sounding profiles,
              sub-bottom profiles, side-scan sonographs and bottom sampling. Navigational
              fixes were made with Loran C. Tracklines for the sub-bottom, soundings
              and side-scan sonar surveys are shown in Figs. 1 and 2.

                  The following pieces of equipment were utilized. The bathymetric survey
              was made with a Raytheon depth system composed of a narrow beam transducer
              and a 719 Recorder. Continuous depth profiles of the bottom were recorded.
                  For the sub-bottom investigation, a continuous seismic reflection profiler
              consisting of a E.C,&..G.,Uniboom sound source, a 10 element hydrophone, a
              filter unit and an EPC Recorder, was used. In this operation, sound signals
              were directed into the bottom at one second intervals. These pulses were
              reflected from various sub-bottom features and the returning signals were
              picked up by the hydrophone array. In turn, the pulses were filtered at a
              band width of 600-1100 Rz and then printed at a sweep rate of either 1/4 or 1/8
              sec.as a continuous sub-bottom profile.

                  A Klein Associates, Inc., side-scan sonar composed of a towfish and
              two channel wet paper recorder was used to view the bottom conditions. Opera-
              tionally, the fish was towed about 3 feet below the water surface. Sound signals,
              emanating from both sides of the fish were beamed perpindicular to the direction
              at which the fish was moving. These signals were reflected back from various
              bottom targets on either side of the fish and recorded. The system was adjusted
              to survey a 248 ft.wide strip on each side of the fish. The navigation was
              fixed so that the dual strips of one trackline juxtaposed or overlapped the
              dual strips of each succeeding line.
                  In the sediment sampling, grab samples were retrieved from the bottom Sur-
              face with a Smith-McIntyre sampler and a 5 fo ot gravity corer was used to
              collect a vertical section of the bottom.
                   2. Laboratory techniques: The data generated from bathymetric, sub-bottom
              and side-scan surveys were processed as follows. Depth measurements were
              sampled from the record at 12 sec,intervals, corrected to mean low water (MLW)
              and plotted. For the sub-bottom data, the seismic profiles were sampled at

              30 sec.intervals.

                                                                                                                                                                   Wits           624

                                                                                                                                                                    ,412

                                                                            Trackline March 26, 1980
                                                  37'                                                                                                                                     .122
                                                                            Trackline from Coastal
                                                                            Resources Center (1977)

                                                                                                                                                                                          woo

                                                                                                                                                                              .725
                                                                                                                                                                                                     406

                                                                                                                                                     .650
                                                                                                                                                                         1726
                                                                                                                                                        14"

                                                                                                                                                                                                          1w.

                                                                                                                                    1432                                1.50                            Sol           '100
                                                                                                                                                                 @120

                                                                                                                                                                                     600
                                                                                                                         ...2                                                                                t
                                                                                                                                                                                          .651
                                                                                                                             -63S

                                                                                                                                               1556

                                                                                                             1640
                                                                                                                                                              ,30                                                     1.2
                                                                                                                       M4
                                                                                                  -552                                                                                      1342      .63   1
                                                                                                        .4130     1436                                                                             'IQ

                                                                                                       SX5                                            ".1154
                                                                                                             W"                                         MS
                                                                                                 SN

                                                                       FIG. I         TRACKLINES
                                                 41*                           Seismic Reflection Survey

                                                                                                                                                                                                         9 1214
                                                               0                        nautical miles                             0.5                                                                   1

                                                                                                                      I InCh=400 feet

                                                                                                                                                                                 711
                                                                       25'                                                                                                      24   1

                                                                                                                                         CALF PASTURE POINT

                                                                                                                                            ALLEN HARBOR
                                                                                                                                                ENTRANCE                                                     09"
                                                                                                                                                                                                   09M

                                                                                                                                                                                                 0                   0050

                                                                                                                                                                                                           0604

                                                                                                                                                                                                       "ll                    COM
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    0"

                                                                                                                                                                       D

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         0634
                                                                                                                                                                                         7
                                                                                                                                                                                                     U              M4       090.

                                                                                                                                                                                         0920

                                                                                                                                                                                       090                                                             0416
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          09011
                                                                                                                                                          101                                       ow                           ow

                                                                                        Q                                                              'o.                                    0"o                         922
                                                                                      A,
                                                                                  Q7                                                            W3                                09"                                                               0259
                                                                                 C.1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  M2                          we
                                                                                                                                                                              '000

                                                                                                                                    *26                          1014
                                                                                                                                         033

                                                                                                                                                                                               @50

                                                                                                                         1035        34

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            0034                            0@
                                                                                                                                                                              100.9     1006                                                    1044
                                                                                                                                  1030          1028           20     lom               1005                       09M
                                                                                                                   low                                       .034
                                                                                                                                                                                              1004                        O@2
                                                                                                                                                                                         1                0932
                                                                                                                            AIRPORT BULKHEAD                                                                     J002
                                                                                 FIG.2 TRACKLINES
                                                     41*                       Bothymetric and Side-scan Surveys
                                                     36'                                            April 16, 1980                                                                                                        4       1000

                                                                          0                                                                                 05
                                                                                                   nautical miles                                                                                                                             Oise
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    .49

                                                                                                                                           I incha,110 feet

                                                                                                                                                                                                            71*
                                                                              25'                                                                                                                           24'
                                                                                1

                                                    -3-

                Measurements, in time units, were determined for the bottom surface and
                bedrock interface. These time units were converted to feet by using a velocity
                of 4800 ft/sec for water and 5,000 ft/sec for overburden (Birch and Dietz, 1962).
                Unfortunately none of the C.E. Maquire boring sites that reached bedrock
                were within the draft limitations of R/V Schock. Hence the sediment velocity
                value was taken from a determination that was made previously at a nearby
                location in Narragansett Bay. Plots of bedrock depths were made in both time
                units and feet and a plot of the overburden thickness was prepared in feet.
                Side-scan bonographs were analyzed for distinctive bottom characteristics and
                these features were plotted on a map to provide a mosaic of the bottom.

                     Sediments were analyzed by methods used in sedimentary geology. Sands
                were washed, dried, weighed, sieved through a nest of screens consisting of
                openings of 2, 1, 0.5, 0.25, o.125 and 0.063 mm..and weighed.  The resulting
                data were used to calculate the proportions of sand and grayel as well as
                the type of sand present.

                     Samples composed primarily of silt-clAy components were washed, screened
                through.a 2 mm.sieve and semi-dried. A test sub-sample was taken from which
                one weighed fraction was used for moisture content determination and the other
                weighed fraction was used to measure the amount of sand, silt and clay present.
                For the latter fraction, a hydrometer analysis method as described in the
                American Society for Testing Materials boo k of standards, was followed. However
                only the 250 and 1440 minute settling times were recorded. After the analysis,
                the contents in the hydrometer cylinder were passed through a 0.062 mm screen
                and the sand fraction was weighed and seived. The   data was then utilized in
                calculating the percentages of sand., silt, and clay. In this analysis,
                clay is defined as particles that are less than .0034 mm (3.4 micron)
                rather than the conventional 3.9 micron.
                Results
                    1. Shoreline: From Calf Pasture Pt. to Airport bulkhead, the shore is
                comprised of sandy beaches, rocks and steel bulkheads. Sand beaches are
                found north of the ramp to just south of the Allen Harbor entrance at Dogpatch
                (Fig-2). The beaches, consisting of lenses of coarse-medium sand with
                gravel admixture, lie upon a coarser surface. T .he beaches are about 75-100
                feet wide; slope 2-4 degrees offshore; and have at times 1-2 foot cusps on
                their foreshore. A small dune line borders the bench north of the ramp.

                                                   -4-

                  On other sections of the shoreline, beaches are poorly developed or
             absent. These include the south side of Allen Harbor entrance, around the
             ramp, between the ramp and Pier 2 - where the eroded edge of marsh deposits
             forms the shoreand south of Pier 2 immediately west of bulkhead terminus.

                  Adjacent to the shoreline, the bottom is essentially flat. This very
             shallow flat bottom extends many hundreds of feet seaward. Fine sand, light
             at the surface but dark below, characterizes the bottom. In front of the
             cottages south of Pier 1 (Dogpatch), about 2 feet of fine sand overlie a
             mud layer of 0.5 to I ft in thickness. The mud is composed of 85% silt,
             )D%clay, and 5% sand. The extent of this mud layer in the entire nearshore
             bottom is unknown. Moreover an occasional boulder is also observed in the
             nearshore zone. A fan-shaped deposit of sand and gravel, extending some 200
             ft outward from the shore, lies adjacent to a swamp that is located just north
             of the line of shore cottages. This. swamD is drained by a well-developed channel
             that is offset toward the south on the beach face before turning seaward on
             the fan. Where the bulkhead begins the bottom consists of  cobbles and
             boulders. which may serve to protect the two large bulkhead culverts which
             connect with Fry's Pond.

                  Some insight into shoreline -processes may be inferred from these observa-
             tions. Evidence of a net southward bea ch drift is apparent from the beach
             accretion on the north side of the Allen Harbor entrance, sand infilling on the
             north side of the harbor channel, rip-rapping on south side of harbor entrance,
             eroded shore south of Pier 1, and southward off setting of swamp channelway
             south of Pier 1. However, the southward beach drift is believed to be weak
             south of Allen Harbor entrance.

                  No evidence was uticoveredduring the July field inspection to support the
             existence of a seasonal exchange of sand from the beach to the nearshore bottom

             or from the nearshore bottom to the beach.

                  2. Bathymetry- Bathymetric data are presented as a contour map (Fig. 3).
                  The relief in the area is characterized by the dredged ship channel net-
             work and a drowned stream channel adjacent to the airport bulkhead (Fig. 3).
             Otherwise,the bottom shows a gradual inclination offshore from 6 to 26 feet.

                               -37'

                                                                                                                                 22

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

                                              FIG. 3     BATHYMETRY
                                 416      (Soundings Corrected to Moan Low Water)
                                 36'
                                                       Contour Intervals I foot

                                            0                                           0.5
                                                             nautical miles

                                                                                I Inch-400 feet

                                                                                                                   716
                                                                                                                   24
                                                                                                                    I

                                                      -5-

                Their edges are well-defined and marked by slopes that  range from 1:2.5
                1:4. Apparent slumps are observed at a few locations.

                     A drowned stream valley complex lies immediately north of the airport
                bulkhead and essentially parallels. the structure. This valley extends from
                the vicinity of the shore eastward to a position northeast of the bulkhead
                where it loses its identity. Depths within the valley reach 18 to 26 feet.
                The most noteworthy aspect of this feature is that a harrow divide separates
                the depression into two well-defined channelways.

                     Away from these prominent features, the bottom is shallower with no
                distinct relief except for two small "mounds" that occur between the piers and
                airport bulkhead at depths of 17 feet.

                     3. Bottom. surface conditions (side-scan sonar): The side-viewing sonar
                survey reveals a small variety of bottom features within the area (Fig. 4).
                These features include the edges of channelways; the units of the valley complex
                adjacent to the airport bulkhead; the divide within the valley complex; rake
                marks; three arbitrary categories of bottom roughness (i.e. slightly rough,
                very slightly rough and smooth bottom); and a number of U'nideritified targets.
                The distribution of the features follows no pattern except that the smoothest
                bottom occurs only in the channels and'valley complex.

                     4. Sediment
                           Surface sediments range from sands to silts (Fig. 5) (Appendix A).
                     These sediment types reflect sand contents that vary from 98% sand to
                4% sand. Across the area, the bottom sediment shows dark sands composed of
                up to 98% sand inshore grading to dark sediment with 74-54% sand further off-
                shore that contains 20-42% silt and 346% clay(particles less than 3.4 microns).

                     The finest sediment, silt deposits, are located within the dredged ship
                channel and the drowned river valley adjacent to the airport bulkhead. In the
                ship channel, an unstratified silt accumulation, measured by coring to be
                approximately 18 inches at one location, contains 75-84% silt, 6-:17% clay
                and 4-16% sand and overlies a sandy dredged surface. The si.ir within the
                drowned valley shows 77% silt, 13% clay and 10/0Q" sand. Beneath the surface silt,
                the bottom is composed of laminated units of fine sediment at least to a
                depth of 2.3 feet.

                                                                                                     aso
                                           Slightly Rough Bottom

                                         .:-Very Slightly Rough Bottom

                                           Smooth Bottom

                                           Edge of Channel, Hillock. or Depression

                                           Rake Marks

                                                                                                                        L on
                                         -Targets Undefined

                                           Chain

                                                                                                                      trim

                                                                                Ion   01 111.

                                                                                            100                              9).4

                                         FIG. 4
                                        SIDE-SCAN SURVEY April               16, 1980
                                41*    (Feature Locations Based Upon Slant Ranges)
                                36,

                                           0              nouticet miies           0.5

                                                                           1 Inch-400 feet

                                           25'                                                             71*
                                                                                                             214'

                                                                                                                                                                 0211
                                                                            75% Sand
                                                            ,\MMMM\@ -   50%-75% Sand

                                                                         25%-50% Sand
                                             57'
                                                            RE-         < 25% Sand

                                                     o- Grab Samples 1-27                     %sand content

                                                    0- Samples trom Coastal Resources C                              ter
                                                                (1977) A-H %sandcontont
                                                                                                                                          @,?Lv -a@ J4jj j:
                                                    -0- Core Locations:

                                                                                                                                                               .... .............
                                                                                                                           4                              ......... ...    ..........
                                                                                                                                                r: r:: j t-,!  ot I

                                                                                                                                                                                           P
                                                                                                                                                                         .............

                                                                                                                                                            1:7

                                                                                                                                                                0031%,

                                                                                                                                                                                      Oc

                                                                                     Im'
                                                                                                                                                                                       q

                                                           FIG. 5

                                                           SURFACE SAND DISTRIBUTION
                                            41*
                                          -36'

                                                                                      nautical miles

                                                                                                                I inch 400 foot

                                                                   :vIx

                                                                                                                                                                   710
                                                                25'                                                                                                24'

                     The sand component in all sediment types is dominated by fine to very
                fine sand (Appendix A). Shells and gravel comprise only 2-7% of the samples.

                     5. Bedrock
                           Bedrock depths are shown in time units (Fig. 6) and feet (Fig. 7)
                based upon a speed in water of 4800 ft/sec and a sediment velocity of 5,000
                ft/sec (Birch and Dietz, 1962). C.E. Maguire boring sites with bedrock
                depths are also plotted on Figure 7. Compilation of bedrock depth data is
                presented in Appendix B.

                     The depth, attitude and shape of the bedrock surface is apparently con-
                trolled by the down cutting of an ancient drainage system. The dissected sur-
                face lies from 47 to 119 ft below MLW with no obvious attitude. Unfortunately,
                a'significant portion of the surface is hidden because of attenuation of the
                acoustic signals by gaseous sediments beneath the channels and valley complex.

                     A major bedrock valley crosses the area from NW to SE. Depths within this
                valley reach more than 110 feet east of Pier I but shoal toward the southeast
                before apparently connecting with a N-S trending channel that lies adjacent to the
                study area on the east. A smaller bedrock valley, oriented E-W, appears to join
                the NW-SE trending valley northeast of the airport bulkhead. Bedrock depths
                within this valley are less than 90 feet. South of Pier 1, it is uncertain as
                to how the bedrock depths of almost 100 feet are related to the valley segments
                described above.

                     The shallowest bedrock dephts, about 50 feet, are associated with the
                western divide of the N-S trending valley that lies along the study area s eastern
                side.

                     6. Overburden: Sediment thickness is plotted as an iso@ach map (Fig. 8).
                Calculated thickness values are based upon a sediment velocity of 5,000 ft/sec.
                All data on the overburden are presented in Appendix B. Sediment thickness
                information from he C.E. Maguire borings and bore holes during U.S. Navy
                ownership (Coastal Resources Center, 1977) is also shown on Figure 8.

                     Overburden thickness ranges from 25 to 99 feet. These values are closely
                kelated to the configuration of the bedrock surface: the greatest thickness
                occur in the bedrock valleys with lesser sediment cover lying on the divides.
                Hence an overburden thickness of over 99 feet is found immediately east of
                Pier 2 and more than 80 feet lies south of Pier 1.

                                                                                                                                                                           Alf)
                                          37'                                                                                                                                            2

                                                                                                         20---

                                                                                                                                                       00

                                                      FIG. 6          BEDROCK DEPTHS
                                          4                          In tirno units (milliseconds)
                                       -36                           Contour interval, 5 rnsec

                                                      0                                                             0.5
                                                                             nautical miles

                                                                                                        I inch 400 feet

                                                                                                                                                           710
                                                            25'                                                                                            24'
                                                                                                                                                             L

                                                                                 70

                 37' IgGaseous Sediment                                100 90
                          Bore Hole depth to bedrock              100  110 80 70

                                                                                     70
                                                                                      80

                                                              lilt ]lilt]

                                        ;7
                                                                   11  lilt

                                                            90
                                                         80     1
                                    49

                                             60

                                                 70  n7O                          60

                        Fig.. 8 BEDROCK DEPTHS
                -410           in feet measured from mean low
    A             36'          water.Contour interval: ten
                               feet.
                         0    Nautical Miles         0.5

                                                 0   400
                                                   feet
                                                                     710
                           25'                                       241

                                                      F_

                                                                                                                                                                              so
                                                                                                                                                                           40 r
                                                                                                                                                                                 ,,o

                                                                                                                                                                                   70

                                                  Gaseous Sediment

                                               -Bore Hole--Depth          (it) of Overburden

                                               -Bore Hole--Depth          (it) of Pehetration                                                                                   90
                                 -37'                     to refusal                                                                90    90
                                             0 -Bore Hole--Depth          (it) of Penetration                                                                                   70
                                                          In Overburden                                                                          70                           60
                                                                                                                                                 1.60
                                            11 -Bore Hole--(Navy) Depth (it)                                                                           50
                                                         of Penetration in Overburden                                                                     40  30

                                                                                                                                                                     0
                                                                                      84                                                                               50

                                                                                5qr                      0
                                                                                                         52
                                                                              39         7
                                                                                   47          0

                                                                               0
                                                                               52
                                                                                                                                   a
                                                             41                        0
                                                                  44                   32
                                                                          ?       40
                                                                           2
                                                                                                                                          70

                                                                    0
                                                          0         32
                                                         48                                                                         72
                                                                                      V4

                                                                                                                                                           %-,Go
                                                                                         50
                                                                                                                              60

                                           FIG. 8
                                           SEDIMENT OVERBURDEN THICKNESS
                                   41'                                 In foot
                                 -36'
                                                              Contour Intervol: 10 feet

                                                                       nautical miles

                                                                                            1 inch m 400 feet

                                                    25'                                                                                 24'

                                                    -7-

               Beoeath the E-W trending valley complex, more than 50 feet of overburden
               covers the bedrock.

                    The smallest accumulation, about 50 feet, lies above the bedrock divide
               that occurs along the area's eastern side.

                    A close inspection of the seismic records together with an interpretation
               of C.E. Maguire's boring logs indicates that the overburden is composed
               primarily of glacial outwash with a smaller amount  of glacial till.

                                                 -8-

                                            References

            American Society for Testing and Materials, 1968, Book of ASTM Standards.
              Standa rd Method for Grain Size Analysis of Soils, p. 205-216, Phila, Pa.

            Birch, W.B., and F.T. Dietz, 1962. Seismic refraction investigations in
              selected areas of Narragansett Bay, RI. J. Geophys. Res. 67: 2813-2821.

            Coastal Resources Center, 1977. The Redevelopment of Quonset/Davisville, An
              Environmental Assessment. Kingston, Univ. of Rhode Island.

                                                 APPENDIX A

                                                Sediment Data*

                                                   Table I

                @@TpLe                      %Sand         %Silt         %Clay
                 1 +                          14              69          17

                 2  +                         11              69          20

                 3  +                         6               81          13

                 4                            93              7           -

                 5                            95              5           -

                 6  +                         77              18          5

                 7                            84              16          -

                 8  +                         31              48          21

                 9  +                         9               80          11

                10  +                         10              77          13

                11  +                         37              55          8

                21                            93              7           -

                22                            95              5

                22A                           93              7           -

                23 +                          55              39          6

                24  +                         74              23          3

                25                            98              2           -

                26  +                         93              4           3

                27  +                         16              76          7

                +   hydrometer analysis performed
                    Sand greater than .063 mm.
                    Silt greater than .0034 mm., less than .063 mm.
                    Clay less than .0034 mm

                                          SAND SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS

                                                       TABLE 2.

                               Sampie           2 mm -L.-rm     ..5 nm    .25    .125    .062

                                                                  1.8     32.1    32.1    32.1

                                     2                    7.4     7.4     25.9    25.9    33.3

                                     3

                                     4              -       A     7.4     16.3    56.4      9.3

                                     5              4.9   11.6    22.0    25.1    24.0      6.5

                                     6                 .2 2.0     11.8    39.8    25.2    22.0

                                     7                 .6 2.4     4.5     16.0    28.6    22.0

                                     8              1.0   4.9     4.9      9.8    48.0    30.4

                                     9                 -  4.8     4.8      7.3    29.3    58.5

                                     10                -  6.5     6.5      9.7    19.4    54.8

                                     11                .3 1.2     2.3      2.3    26.3    68.4

                                     21-               .1   .6    1.0      3.0    43.4    50.0

                                     22                .1   .8    1.3      5.9    67.3    23.5

                                     22A               .1   .5      .9     1.6    61.5    33.6

                                     23                .2 1.1     2.5      5.7    42.2    48.2

                                     24                -    .5    1.9     15.7    37.0    45.4

                                     25                .1 2.3     10.4    14.3    63.8      9.1

                                     26                -    .4       .7   12.1    49.3    37.3

                                     27                -    .9    1.9      3.7    18.5    74.1

                                                                              APPENDIX B

                                                                             SUB-BOTTOM DATA

                                                 (a)            (b)              (c)                              (d)
                                             Time to btm     Btm depth       Time to Bdrk Time Diff          Sed Thick     Depth to Bdrk
                                  Position       m sec       4800 ft/sec       (m sec)      c-s (m sec)         (ft)       (b+d)(ft)

                                     1540        5.5            26.4             19            13.5             67.5           93.9

                                     1540.5      5.75           27.6             18.5          12.7             63.5           91.1

                                                 7.5            36

                                                 7.5            36

                                     1542        5.5            26.4             18.5          13.0             65             91.4

                                                 5.2            25               19.0          13.8             69             94

                                                 5.2            25               18.5          13.3             66.5           91.5

                                                 5.0            24               18.5          13.5             67.5           91.5

                                     1544        5.0            24               19.5          14.5             72.5           96.5

                                                 4.5            21.6             18.0          13.5             67.5           89.1

                                                 4.0            19.2             17.0          13               65             84.2

                                                 5.0            24               16.5          11.5             57.5           81.5

                                     1546        4.75           22.8             16.5          11.7             58.5           81.3

                                                 3.5            16.8             16            12.5             62.5           79.3

                                                 3.5            16.8             15.5          12               60             76.8

                                                 3.0            14.4             16            13               65             79.4

                                     1548        3.2            15.4             15.5          12.3             61.5           76.9

                                                 3.0            14.4             14.5          11.5             57.5           71.9

                                                 3.5            16.8             14            10.5             52.5           69.3

                                                 3.5            16.8             -13.5         10               50             66.8

                                     1550        4.0            19.2             13            9                45             64.2

                                                 3.5            16.8             13            9.5              47.5           64.3

                                                 2.5            12               12.5          10               50             62

                                                 4.0            19.2             13            9                45             64.2

                                                 G*  denotes gaseous sediment

                                                                                       -2-

                                                                            Appendix B (con   't)

                                                                               S"UB-BOTTOM DATA
                                                   (a)            (b)               (c)                            (d)
                                    Position    Time to btm    Btm depth       Time to Bdrk Time Diff           Sed Thick     Depth to Bdrk
                                                  m sec        4800 ft/sec       (m sec)         c-s (m sec)        (ft)       (b+d) (ft)

                                       1552        4.5            21.6              G

                                                   5.0            24.0              G*

                                       1553        4.5            21.6              G

                                                   5.0            24                G

                                       1554        4.5            21.6              G

                                                   3.5            16.8              11.5           8                40            56.8

                                                   3.5            16.8              12.5           9                45            61.8

                                                   4.0            19.2              13.0           9                45            64.2

                                       1556        3.5            16.8              13.0          9.5               47.5          64.3

                                                   3.5            16.8              15.0         11.5               57.5          74.3

                                                   4.0            19.2              15.0         11                 55            74.2

                                                   4.0            19.2              16.0         12                 60            79.2

                                       1558        4.0            19.2              16.5         12.5               62.5          81.7

                                                   4.2            20.2              18.5         14.3               71.5          91.7

                                                   4.2            20.2              21.0         16.8               84           104.2

                                                   6.5            31.2              G              -                  -           -

                                       1600        6.5            31.2              G                                 -           --

                                                   7.0            33.6              21.0         14                 70           103.6

                                                   7.0            33.6              21.0         14                 70           103.6

                                                   7.0            33.6

                                       1602        7.0            33.6

                                                   7.2            34.6              G              -                  -           -

                                                   5.0            24                12.0         7.0                35            59

                                                   6.5            31.2              13.5         7                  35            66.2

                                                      denotes gaseous sediment

                                                                                 -3-

                                                                        Appendix B (con't)

                                                                          SUB-BOTTOM DATA

                                               (a)             (b)           (c)                           (d)
                                           Time to btm     Btm depth      Time to Bdrk Time Diff         Sed Thick    Depth to Bdrk
                                 Position     m sec        4800 ft/sec    (m sec)        C-a (m sec)        (ft)        (b+d) (ft)

                                   1604        6.5           31.2            14.5           8              40            71.2

                                               5.5           26.4            15.0           9.5            47.5          73.9

                                               5.5           26.4            15.5           10             so            76.4

                                               5.5           26.4            15.5           10             50            76.4

                                                                                              -4-

                                                                                  Appendix B (con't)

                                                                                    SUB-BOTTOM DATA

                                                      .(a)             (b)              (a)                                 (d)
                                      Position    Time to btm      Btm depth        Time to Bdrk Time Diff              Sed Thick     Depth to Bdrk
                                                    m see         4800 ft/sec         (m see)          c-a m see)           (ft)           b+d (ft)

                                          1606         5.5             26.4               16.0           10.5               52.5           78.9

                                                       5.5.            26.4               16.0           10.5               52.5           78.9

                                                       5.2             25                 13.0           7.8                39             64

                                                       5.0             24                 15.0           10                 50             74

                                          1608         5.0             24                 16.0           11                 55             79

                                                       4.5             21.6               18.0           13.5               67.5           89.1

                                                       3.5             16.8               19.0           15.5               77.5           94.3

                                                       3.5             16.8               19.5           16                 80             96.8

                                          1610         4.0             19.2               22.0           18                 90             109.2

                                                       3.5             16.8               23.0           19.5               97.5           114.3

                                                       3.5             16.8               23.0           19.5               97.5           114.3

                                                       3.0             14.4               22.5           19.5               97.5           111.9

                                          1612         3.0             14.4               21.5           18.5               92.5           116.9

                                                       3.3             16.8               22.0           18.5               92.5           109.3

                                                       3.2             15.4               22.0           18.8               94             109.4

                                          1614         3.5             16.8               19.0           15.5               77.5           94.3

                                                       3.5             16.8               17.5           14                 70             86.8

                                                       3.5             16.8               16.0           12.5               @62.5          79.3

                                                       3.7             17.8               15.5           11.8               59             76.8

                                          1616         4.2             20.2               15             10.8               54             64.2

                                          1616.5       4.7             22.6               14.5             9.8              49             71.6
                                          1617         5.0             24                 15.0             10               50             74
                                          1617.5       5.0             24                 14.5             9.5              47.5           71.5
                                          1618,        5.0             24                 15:5           10.5               52.5           76.5
                                                       ? 6.2           29.8               18.0           11.8               59             88.8
                                          1619         5.0             2.4                13.0           13                 65             89

                                                                                     -5-
                                                                             Appendix B (con't).

                                                                              SUB-BOTTOM DATA
                                                   (a)              (b)           (c)                           (d)
                                    Position   Time to btm    Btm depth       Time to Bdrk Time Diff           Sed Thick    Depth to Bdrk
                                                m  sec        4800 ft/sec        (m sec)        c-a m sec)        (ft)        @b+d (ft)

                                      1619.5       5.0           24               17.0            12              60            84

                                      1620         4.7           22.6             15.5            10.8            54            76.6

                                                   4.0           19.2             13.0              9.0           45            64.2

                                                   3.5           16.8             12-.5             9             45            61.8

                                                   3.5           15.4             17.0            13.8            69            84.4

                                      1622         3.5           16.8             17.5            14              70            86.8

                                                   3.2           15.4             19.0            15.8            79            94.4

                                                   3.5           16.8             18.5            15              75            91.8

                                                   3.5           16.8             19.0            15.5            77.5          94.3

                                      1624         3.5           16.8             20.0            16.5            82.5          99.3

                                                   3.5           16.8             21.0            17.5            87.5          104.3

                                                   3.5           16.8             21.0            17.5            87.5          104.3

                                                   3.5           16.8             20.0            16.5            82.5          99.3

                                      1626         3.5           16.8             19.0            15.5            77.5          94.3

                                                   6.0           28.8                G

                                                   7.0           33.6                G

                                                   7.0           33.6                G

                                      1628         7.0           33.6                C
                                                   7.5            36                 G*

                                                   6.7           32.2                G

                                                   6.7           32.2                G

                                      1630         7.0           33.6                G*             -

                                                   4.'-0         19.2             16.5            12.5          62.5            81.7

                                      1631         4.0           19.2             16.5            12.5          62.5            81.7

                                                   3.5           16.8             16.0            12.5          62.5            79.3

                                                      denotes gaseous  sediment

                                                                                     -6-
                                                                             Appendix B (con't)

                                                                             SUB-BOTTOM DATA
                                                   (a)             (b)             (c)                           (d)
                                   Position   Time to btm     Btm depth       Time to Bdrk Time Diff           Sed Thick    Depth to Bdrk
                                                   m sec       4800 ft/sec      (m sec)            c-a (m sec)      (ft)       b+d (ft)

                                      1632         3.5            16.8              15             11.5             57.5         74.3

                                                   3.5            16.8              14             10.5             52.5        .@69.3

                                                   3.5            16.8              13.5           10               50           66.8

                                                   3.5            16.8              13             9.5              47.5         64.3
                                      1634         3..5           16.8              13             9.5              47.5         64.3
                                                   3.5            16.8              13             9.5              47.5         64.3

                                                   3.5            16.8              12.5           9.0              45           61.8

                                                   5.0            24                 G

                                      1636         5.0            24                 G

                                                      -           -                 12.0           -                -              -

                                                   4.2            20.2              12.5           8.3              41.5         61.7

                                                   5.0            24                 G  *          -                -              -

                                      1639         5.0            24                 G*
                                                   5.0            24                 G  *          -                -              -                    1

                                      1640         5.2            25                11.5           6.3              31.5         56.5

                                                   3.5            16.8              12.0           8.5              42.3         59.3

                                                   3.5            16.8              11.5           8                40           56.8

                                                   3.5            16.8              12.0           8.5              42.5         59.3

                                      1642         3.2            15.4              12.0           8.8              44           59.4

                                                   3.2            15.4              12.0           8.8              44           59.4

                                                   3.5            16.8              17             13.5             67.5         84.3

                                                   3.2            15.4              18.5           15.3             76.5         91.9

                                      1644         3.0            14.4              18.5           15.5             77.5         91.9

                                                   3.0            14.4              19             16               80           94.4

                                                      denotes gaseous   sediment

                                                                                   -7-
                                                                            Appendix B (con't)

                                                                            SUB-BOTTOM DATA
                                                  (a)            (b)             (C)                           (d)
                                  Position   Time to btm     Btm depth       Time to Bdrk Time Diff           Sed Thick     DeDth to Bdrk
                                                m sec        4800 ft/sec     (m sec)          (.c-a m sec)        (.ft)      b+d (ft)

                                     1645.,       3.2            15.4              19.5          16.3             81.5          96.9

                                                  3.2            15.4              20            16.8             84            99.4

                                     1646         3.2            15.4              20            16.8             84            99.4

                                                  7.5            36                G*              -                -           -

                                                  7.7                              G*              -                -           -

                                                  7.5            36                G*              -                -           -

                                     1648         6.5            31.2              G*              -                -           -

                                                  6.7            32.2

                                                  6.5            31.2

                                                  6.5            31.2              G*

                                     1650         6.7            32.2

                                                  6.7            32.2

                                                  6.7            32.2

                                                  7.0            33.6

                                     1652         7.0            33.6              21.5          14.5             72.5+        106.1

                                                  7.2            34.6              21.0          13.8             69           103.6

                                                  7.5            36

                                                  7.5            36

                                     1654         7.5            36                15 ?            6.5            32.5          68.5

                                                  7.0            33.6              14.5            7.5            37.5          71.1

                                                  7.0            33.6              15.0            8              40            73.6

                                                  7.0            33.6              14.5            7.5            37.5          71.1

                                     1656         7.0            33.6              14.5            7.5            37.5          71.1

                                                  7.5            36                15.5            8              40            76

                                                  7.5            36                15.0            7.5            37.5          73.5

                                                  6.5            31.2              15.5            8              40            71.2

                                                   denotes gaseous sediment

                                                                                             -8-
                                                                                   Appendix R (con't)

                                                                                   SUB-BOTTOM DATA
                                                       (a)             (b)            (c)                               (d)
                                      Position    Time to Btm      Btm depth        Time to Bdrk Time Diff             Sed Thick     Depth to Bdrk
                                                   m sec           4800 ft/sec        (m sec)         (c-a m sec)         .(ft)          b+d (ft)

                                         1658          6.0             28.8             15.0            9                 45                73.8

                                                       6A              28.8             16  .0          10                50                78.8

                                                       5.5             26.4             16.0            10.5              52.5              78.9

                                                       5.5             26.4             16.5            11                55                81.4

                                         1700          5.5             26.4             16.0            10.5              52.5              78.9

                                                       5.7             27.4             16.5            10.8              54                81.4

                                                       6.0             28.8             16.0            10                50                78.8

                                                       6.0             28.8             16.5            10.5              52.5              81.3

                                         1702          6.0             28.8             16.0            10.0              50                78.8

                                                       6.0             28.8             16.0            10.0              50                78.8

                                                       5.5             26.4             17.0            11.5              57.5              83.9

                                                       6,0             28.8             17.0            11.0              55                83.8

                                         1704          5.7             27.4             16.0            10.3              51.5              78.9

                                                       5.7             27.4             16.0            10.3              51.5              78.9

                                                       5.7             27.4             16.5            10.8              54                81.4

                                                       5.7             27.4             16.5            10.8              54                81.4

                                         1706          5.7             27.4             17.0            11.3              56.5              83.9

                                                       5.5             26.4             15.5            id                50                76.4

                                                       5.5             26.4             15.5            10                50                76.4

                                                       5.5             26.4             19.0            13.5              67.5              93.9

                                         1708          5.7             27.4             21.0            15.3              76.5             103.9

                                                       5.5             26.4             21.0            15.5              77.5             103.9

                                                       5.5             26.4             22.0            16.5              82.5             108.9

                                                       5.5             26.4             21.0            15.5              77.5             103.9

                                         1710          5.5             26.4             20.5            15.0              75               101.4

                                                       5.0             24               19.5            14.5              72.5              96.5

                                                                                   -9-

                                                                         Appendix B (con't)
                                                                           SUB-BOTTOM DATA
                                                (a)           (b)              (c)                            (d)
                                 Position   Time to btz     Btm depth      Time to Bdrk Time Diff          Sed Thick     Depth to Bdrk
                                              m sec         4800 ft/sec     (m sec)       (c-a sec)           (ft)         b+d (ft)

                                   1711         5.2           25               19.5          14.3             713           96.5

                                                5.2           25               19.5          14.3             71.5          96.5

                                   1712         5.2           25               19.0          13.8             69            94

                                                5.0           24               19.0          14               70            94

                                                5.5           26.4             18.5          13               65            91.4

                                                5.5,          26.4             19.0          13.5             67.5          93.9

                                   1714         5.7           27.4             19.0          13.3             66.5          93.9

                                                6.5           31.2             18.5          12               60            91.2

                                                6.0           28.8             18.0          12               60            88.8

                                                6.0           28.8             13.0          7                35            63.8

                                   1716         4.0           19.2             12.0          8                40            59.2

                                                4.0           19.2             12.0          8                40            59.2

                                                4.0           19.2             12.0          8                40            59.2

                                                3.7           17.8             13.0          9.3              46.5          64.3

                                   1718         4.0           19.2             13.0          9                45            64.2

                                                4.0           19.2             13.5          9.5              47.5          66.7

                                                4.0           19.2             13.0          9                45            64.2

                                                4.2           20.2             15.0          10.8             54            74.2

                                   1720         4.5           21.6             17.5          13               65            86.6

                                                4.5           21.6             18.5          14               70            91.6

                                                4.5           21.6             18.5          14               70            91.6

                                                4.5           21.6             18.0          13.5                           89.1

                                   1722         4.2           20.2             18.5          14.3             71.5          91.7

                                                4.0           19.2             20.5          16.5             82.5          i0l.7

                                                4.0           19.2             21.0         @17               85            104.1.

                                                4.0           19.2             22.5         718.5             92.5         '-111.7

                                                                                      -10-

                                                                            Appendix B kcan't)

                                                                            SUB-BOTTOM DATA
                                                  (a)             (b)                 (c)                        (d)
                                              Time to  btm    Btm depth      Time to Bdrk Time Diff           Sed Thick     Depth to Bdrk
                                  Position      m sec         4800 ft/sec     (m sec)         c-a (m sec)        (ft)         b+d (ft)

                                     1724         4.2           20.2                  24        19.8             99             119.2

                                                  7.0           33.6

                                                  7.2           34.6

                                                  7.0           33.6                  G*

                                     1726         7.0           33.6                  G

                                                  7.0           33.6                  G

                                                  7.0           33.6                  G

                                                  6.5           31.2                  G

                                     1728         4.5           21.6                  18.5      14               70              91.6

                                                  4.2           20.2                  18        13.8             69              89.2

                                                  4.2           20.2                  17.5      13.3             66.5            86.7

                                                  4.2           20.2                  17        12.8             64              84.2

                                     1730         4.2           20.2                  16.5      12.3             61.5            81.7

                                     1730,5       3.2           15.4                  G*          -                 -              -

                                     1731         3.5           16.8                  G*          -                 -              -

                                                  3.7           17.8                  15.5      11.8             59              76.8

                                     1732         3.5           16.8                  16        12.5             62.5            79.3

                                                  3.7           17.8                  16        12.3             61.5            79.3

                                     1733         4.0           19.2                  15.5      11.5             57.5            76.7

                                                  5.0           24                    G

                                     1734         5.0           24                    G

                                                  5.0           24                    G

                                     1735         3.7           17.8                  13          9.3            46.5            54.3

                                                  3.5           16.8                  14.5      11.0             55              71.8

                                                     denotes gaseous sediment

                                                                              Appendix B (con't)

                                                                               SUB-BOTTOM DATA
                                                    (a)             (b)          (c)                              (d)
                                    Position    Time to  btm   Btm depth       Time to Bdrk Time Diff           Sed Thick    Depth to Bdrk
                                                 m sec         4800 ft/sec         (M sec)      c-a (m sec)       (ft)       (b+d) (ft)

                                       1736        3.5            16.8             14.5          11               55             71.8

                                                   5.2              2.5            15.5          10.3             51.5           76.5

                                                   4.5            21.6             16.5          12               60             81.6

                                                   5.0            24               16.5          11.5             57.5           81.5

                                       1738        5.0            24               18.0          13               65             89

                                                   5.0            24               18.0          13               65             89

                                                   5.0            24               18.5          13.5             67.5           91.5

                                                   5.5            26.4             19            13.5             67.5           93.9

                                       1740        7.5            36                C*             -                -              -

                                                   7.5            36                C*             -                -              -

                                                   7.5            36               19.5          12.0             60             96

                                                   6.0            28.8             19.0          13               65             93.8

                                       1742        6.0            28.8             19.5          13.5             13.5           96.3

                                                      denotes gaseous   sediment

                                                                                         12-

                                                                                      Appendix C
                                                             SUB-BOTTOM DATA (Profile from Coastal Resources Center, 1977)
                                                     (a)           (b)                .(c)                        (d)
                                                Time to btm     Btm depth      Time to Bdrk Time Diff           Sed Thick    Depth to Bdrk
                                     Position        m sec      (4800 ft/sec)         (m sec)   c-a (m sec)       (ft)        b+d (ft)

                                         1200        4.6           22.1               16.0         11.4             57           79.1

                                                     4.6           22.1               14.5         9.9              49.5         71.6

                                          Al         4.6           22.1               14.5         9.9              49.5         71.6

                                                     4.6           22.1               14           9.4              47           69.1

                                          02         4.7           22.6               15           10.4             52           74.6

                                                     4.7           22.6               14           9.3              46.5         69.1

                                          03         4.7           22.6               12.0         7.3              36.5         59.1

                                                     4.7           22.6               10           5.3              26.5         49.1

                                          04         5.0           24                 10.5         5.5              .27.5        51.5

                                                     5.0           24                 11.5         6.5              32.5         56.5

                                                     5.0           24                 12.5         7.5              37.5

                                                     4.7           22.6               11           6.3              31.5         54.1

                                          06         4.5           21.6               9.5          5.0              25           46.6

                                                     4.5           21.6               11.0         6.5              @32.5        54.1

                                          07         4.5           21.6               95           5.0              145          46.6

                                                     5.0           24                 11           6.0              30           54

                                          08         6.0           28.8               11.5         5.5              27.5         56.3

                                                     6.0           28.8               12.0         6,0              30           58.8

                                          09         6.5           31.2               13           6.5              32.5         63.7

                                                     6.5           31.2               11           4.5              22.5         53.7

                                         1210        6.5           31.2               12.0         5.5              V.5          58.7

                                                     6.5           31.2               11.5         5.0              25           56.2

                                          11         7.5           36                 13.5         6.0              30           66

                                                     7.0           33.6               14.0         7.0              35           68.6

                                                                                      Appendix C
                                                           SUB-BOTTOM DATA (Profile from Coadtal Resources Center, 1977)
                                                     (a)        (b)                  (c)                            (d)
                                       Position   Time to Btm     Btm depth      Time to Bdrk Time Diff           Sed Thick    Depth
                                                     m sec        4800 ft/sec       m sec        c-a (m sec)         (ft)      b+d (ft)

                                           1212       6.5           31.2             15.0           8.5             42.5           73.7

                                                      6.5           31.2             15.5           9.0             45             76.2

                                            13        6.5           31.2             15.5           9.0             45             76.2

                                                      6.5           31.2             17.0           10.5            52.5           83.7

                                            14        6.7           32.2             15.5            8.8            44             76.2

                                                      6.7           32.2             16.5            9.8            49             81.2

                                           1215       6.5           31.2             19.0           12.5            62.5           93.7

                                                      6.5           31.2             19.0           12.5            62.5           93.7

                                            16        6.5           31.2             19.0           12.5            62.5           93.7

                                                      6.5           31.2             19.0           12.5            62.5           93.7

                                            17        6.5           31.2             19.0           12.5            62.5           93.7

                                                      6.5           31.2             17.0           10.5            52.5           83.7

                                            18        6.5           31.2             18.0           11.5            57.5           88.7

                                                      6.5           31.2             17.0           10.5            52.5           83.7

                                            19        6.5           31.2             16.0            9.5            47.5           78.7

                                                      6.5           31.2             16.0            9.5            47.5           78.7

                                           1220       6.5           31.2             15.5            9.0            45             76.2

    go

                                                   PART C

                                      EFFECTS OF DEVELOPMENT AT DAVISVILLE,

                                     RHODE ISLAND ON THE MARINE ENVIRONMENT

                                                   Prepared For

                               The Rhode Island Department of Economic Development

                                                        By

                                                 Sheldon D. Pratt
                                          Graduate School of Oceanography
                                            University of Rhode Island

                                                       1980

                   The preparation of this report was financed in part by funds from the Office
                   of Coastal Zone Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
                   U.S. Department of Commerce, administered by the ENERGY OFFICE, EXECUTIVE
                   DEPARTMENT, GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, STATE OF RHODE ISLAND.

                                                 TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                                              Page

                   1. Introduction    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

                    2. Aquatic Biology
                        2.1   Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             2-1
                        2.2   Field Collections    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            2-1

                              Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             2-1
                              Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             2-3
                                                                                              ,)_9
                              Discussion of Field  Data  . . . . . . . . . . . . .            Z-

                        2.3   Fisheries Resources  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            2-14
                        2.4   Effects of Development on  Organisms                            2-16

                              Burial  . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             2-16
                              Bivalves  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             2-16
                              Crustaceans  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            2-17
                              Suspended Sediment   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            2-18

                    3. Suspended Sediment

                        3.1   Introduction   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            3-1
                        3.2   Field Collections  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            3-1

                              Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             3-1
                              Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .             3-2

                        3.3   Discussion   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            3-4

                              Seasonal and Spatial Pattern    . . . . . . . . . . .           3-4
                              Particle Concentration    . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           3-5
                              Turbidity Produced by Dredging    . . . . . . . . . .           3-5)
                              Effects of Alternate Designs    . . . . . . . . . . .           3-7

                    4. Pollutants

                        4.1   Introduction   . . . . . . . . . . .                            4-1
                        4.2   Pollutant Data   . . . . . . . . . .                            4-1

                              Water Quality  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            4-1
                              Hydrocarbons in Sediment    . . . . . . . . . . . . .           4-4
                              Metals in Sediments   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .           4-7
                              Hydrocarbons in Clams   . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .           4-9
                              Neoplasia in Soft Shell Clams   . . . . . . . . . . .           4-11
                              Metals in Clams  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .            4-12

                    5. References

                                                     LIST OF FIGURES

                        2-1.  Grab sample locations from benthic survey
                        3-1.  Location of turbidity structures and surface/bottom values of
                              percent light transmission per meter obtained, March 5, 1980.

                        3-2.  Temperature sections May 28, 1980.

                        3-3.  Turbidity sections May 28, 1980.
                        3-4.  Turbidity and temperature profiles at two locations, June 24,
                              1980.

                        4-1.  Station locations for water and sediment quality samples.

                        4-2.  Allen Harbor stratigraphy and location of samples.

                        4-3.  Metal levels in soft shell clams.

                        4-4.  Metal levels in hard clams Mercenaria mercenaria in Allen Harbor.

                                                      LIST OF TABLES

                       2-1.   Davisville Benthic Survey. Number of individuals recovered from
                              .1 M2 grab samples.

                       2-2.   Davisville Benthic Survey. Number of individuals recovered from
                              .018 m2 grab samples.

                       2-3.   Response of marine fauna to suspended sediment.

                       3-1.   Transmission and temperature of surface and bottom water in the
                              Davisville area.
                       4-l'.  Water quality data for the Davisville area.

                       4-2.   Sediment hydrocarbon concentration in the Davisville area.

                       4-3.   Hydrocarbon concentration of soft shell clams.

                       4-4.   Clam analyses, RIDH, Allen Harbor project..

                       4-5.   Hard clam analyses station 9 of Mount View, North Kingstown.

                                              1. INTRODUCTION

                      This repor t was prepared in support of environmental assessment work for

                  the Rhode Island Department of Economic Development by the Coastal Resources

                  Center (CRC) in order to evaluate designs for port expansion at Davisville

                  Piers proposed by C.E. Maguire, Inc.

                      Baseline data were collected and some potential biological effects
                  of development were identified in a 1977 report on redevelopment of Quonset/

                  Davisvil le by CRC. In response to the issues raised in 1977 for the

                  Davisville project area, both from special field observations and from recent

                  studies by other agencies.

                      Field collections and baseline data are presented in three subsections

                  (Aquatic Biology, Suspended Sediments, Pollutants) with some discussion of

                  the effects of alternative plans. The major conclusions of this report

                  as they pertain to specific designs are summarized in the Environmental

                  Assessment of Davisville Port expansion.

                                             2 AQUATIC BIOLOGY

                 2.1 Introduction

                     Development in the Davisville area will affect all elements of the
                 estuarine ecosystem including planktonic plants and animals and free-swimming
                 fish and crustaceans. Only the bottom-dwelling animals (benthos) are con-
                 sidered in detail in this report. Bottom animals will be directly effected
                 byremoval or burial and by changes in bottom type and pollutant concentration.
                 They can be sampled quantitatively because they are mainly small in size and
                 have limited mobility. They include commercially important species and species

                 which indicate stress or changed bottom conditions.

                      Field collections of bottom animals were made in March and May 1980
                 using techniques similar to those used in the October 1976 survey (Pratt,
                 1977). The results of both surveys are discussed in terms of the different
                 groups of species present and the adequacy of the baseline to detect impacts

                 of development.

                      Recent literature on the effects of suspended sediment and burial on

                 estuarine animals is reviewed to identify the potential impact of dredging

                 alternatives.

                 2.2 Field Collections
                 Methods..      The study area for benthic biology included the area between
                 the airbase bulkhead and the Davisville piers as far out as the dredged

                 turning basin and approach channel. Quantitative grab samples were taken

                 by two methods.
                      In depths of more than 6 feet bottom samples were taken with a 0.1 m2
                 Smith-McIntyre grab with weight adjusted for bottom hardness. A subsample
                 was mmoved for grain size analysis. Stations were located near those sampled
                 for the 1976 Quonset-Davisville study where practical (Fig. 2. 1). A single

                                                    0 CO M' (MARCH 5,12, 1980)
                                                       O.OISMP- (MAY 6, 1980)

                                                          18

                                             01

                                                    02

                                       05                     30
                                            120
                                                   cv@    %
                                              '7
                                             6               9
                                            00               0',
                                  010

                   Figure 2-1. Grab Sample Locations for Benthic Survey
                       Letters A-D designate reference points along Dogpatch Beach
                       for each series of 0.018 m2 oaicples.
                       A pilings
                       B sea wall
                       C rocks
                       D navy bulkhead

                                                   2-2
             sample was taken at 11 stations. Three partially full grabs were combined
             in 7Q to provide a qualitative sample.
                  The shallow flat at the foot of Dogpatch beach was sampled by hand with
             a "gas can" sampler which collects a deep sample (40 cm) 0.018 m2 in area.
             Single samples were taken along 4 transects perpendicular to the beach.
                  All samples were sieved on a 1.0 mm screen as in the 1976 study. The
             residue was preserved and stained in rosebengal-formaldehyde. Animals were
             separated from debris and identified to species. Shell lengths of mollusks
             were measured and sample residues such as animal tubes and shells were

             recorded.

                                                       2-3

                 Results. The bottom environments in the Davisville area can be  placed into

                 three categories on the basis of depth. rhe dredged channels and b.-isl n I-Ind

                 the natural. channe-I in Fry Cove (sta. 1, 2, 3, 9, tO) are floored wtth sowL-

                 fluid sediments with 80-69 percent silt and 11-21 percent clay. Along Dog-

                 patch Beach a sand platform extends several hundred feet offshore below

                 the mean low tide level. This area was sampled by "gascan" stations. The

                 remaining stations (6, 5, 4, 7, 11, 8) are on gently sloping bottom

                 grading from 95 percent sand to 31 percent sand, 69 percent silt/clay

                 between the beach and channel. The shells of clams, oysters, and "deckers"

                 (Crepidula) and live "deckers" provide hard substrate and shelter in this

                 mid area.

                      Each depth zone/bottom type has its own temperature pattern. The

                 shallower areas warm faster in the spring and have higher summer temperature.

                 The deep samples were taken in March when water temperature was 10C through-

                 out the water column. The shallow "gascan" samples were taken on a sunny

                 day in May with water temperature about 150C.

                      Numbers of individuals identified in each sample are given in Tables 2-1
                 and 2-2. The 0.018 m samples are 5.5 smaller than 0.1 m2samples. Parameters

                 for 1976 and 1980 samples from similar locations are given in Table 2-3.

                      The channel stations (1, 2, 3, 9, 10) had very low numbers of species

                 and individuals (1-5, 1-110). The few species present were those adapted

                 for life in the deeper soft bottoms of the Bay, but are usually found in

                 greater densities (Table 2-1).

                      The Dogpatch Beach samples contained 4-21 species per sample and high

                 numbers of species adapted for unstable sandy substrates such as the gem

                 clam (Gemma gemma), the tellin clam (Tellina agillis) and the polychaete

                                                    2-4
                                                 Table 2-1

                           DavisvilleBenthic Survey. Number of individuals recovered from
                           0.1 m2 grab samples (March 5,12, 1980).

                        SPECIES                                 STATIONS
                                            1   2    3    4   5   6     7    Q7    8    9  10    11

               Polychaeta
               Glycera americana                          7   3   15    7    18    3             12
               Pectinaria gouldii                             2     2                             8
               Nephtys incisa               4                                           9
               Mediomastus ambyseta                                 1  13    36  20
               Maldonopsis elongata                          12     1         6    7              1
               Clymenella torquata                                  2              1              1
               Spiochaetopterus oculatus                            2         1
               Tharyx sp.                                               1        28         1
               Pholoe minuta                                        1
               Scoloplos robustus                    1
               Capitella capitata                         1   2               5    5
               Sabellaria-@-ulgaris                       3            10     8
               Harmothoe extenuata                        1         1         1    2
               Nereis succinea                                3     1              4
               Strebiospio benedicti                          3         9     3    1        3     6
                inoe nigripes                                 6     1   6
               Phyllodoce drenae                              1     1         1
               Polydora ligni                                       2   1     1
               Glycinde solitaria                                       I
               Lumbrinereis fragilis                                          I
               Paraornis fulgens                                        2
               Goniadella gracillis                                                1              2
               Amphitrite ornata                                                   2
               Amphitrite cerrata                                                  1
               Polydora sp.                                                        1              1
               lumbrinereid sp.                                                    1
               Paranaitis sp.                             1   4                    3
               Syllid sp.                                     1               1
               Notomastus?
               Micropthalmus?
               Polycirrus,?                                                        2
               Scoloplos?                                           2         2
               Oligochaeta                                                    1

               Nemertines                                               2     10        1

               Anthozoa
               Edwardsia sipunculoides                                             I

                                                          2-5

                Table 2-1     (cont'd

                          SPECIES                                 STATIONS
                                              1    2   3    4    5  6     7   Q7     8   9   10    11

                  Mollusca
                  Nucula annulata                                   13          1     1 87         95
                  Tellina                     9           13     2  24   16   41      2             4
                         -!@ f @11 k! @                        10   11    1               2        13
                  mulinea lateralis            3   9                  2   1           1  11         3
                  Yoldia limatula
                  Pitar morrhuana                           3             1                         4
                  Mercenaria mercenaria                     1    7    7   1     3     3
                  Mya arenaria                              2         2   1   11      1
                  Pandora gouldiaria                                      1
                  Lyonsia hyalina                         15        19   10     1
                  Acteon caniculata
                  Tc-teon punctostriatus                    5         2
                  Nassarius trivittatus            1      22   13                     2
                  Crepidula fornicata                     120  86   19        14      224
                  Crepidula plana                         74   95   23          6     175
                  Anomia simplex                            1    2    4   1   10      12

                  Crustacea
                  Ampelisca vadorum/abdita                52   364  488   4     7            46 108
                  Ampelisca verrilli                        1    2    8   1     3                   1
                  Unciola irrorata                                        3     3
                  Batea catharinesis                        1         3
                  Upogebia affinis                          1
                  Microdeutopus gryllotaloa                 1  10     2
                  Elasmopus levis                                     2         1
                  Paraphons spinosus                           12     1         2
                  Corophium SPP.
                  Rhithropanopeus harrisi                   4    4    2         1       5
                  Pagurus longicarpus

                                                                       Table 2-2
                               Davisville Benthic Survey- number of individuals recovered from 0.018 M2           grab s.amples (May 6, 1980).

                                                           A (pilings)                   B (wall)                  C (rocks)         D (bulkhead)
                                                         2        3       4       1      2      3       4       2       3       4       1      2

                 Polychaeta
                 Glycera americana                                1         3                             1-             4       3               1
                 Te`diomas@us imbyseta                                      4                     1       7                             1      15
                 Capitella capitata                    13         2       25                    15      10               1                       3
                 Notomastus luridus                                                                                                              1
                 Goniadella qracillis                    1
                 Clymenella torquata                     1        2                                                              4               2
                 Spiochaetopterus oculatus                                                        2       2                      2               2
                 Tharyx sp.                              1                  1                     2                                     2        7
                 Scoloplos. robustus                    16        9       10                    15        4     7        4       3     15      27
                 Streblospio, benedicti                  1        3                               3       3     4        4       1
                 Polydora ligni                                             9                             3                      2               1
                 Spio, setosa                           10                82                    14      19              18      26     15      37
                 Pygospio, Sp.                           7        1         3                           13               9      63               1
                 Dispio sp.                              4        5         2                     2       7     1        1       2      1        3
                 Nereis arenaceodonta                    1        2         2
                 Podarke obscura                                  I
                 Eteone heteropoda                       6                  6                     1       9                      4               1
                 Eteone longa                                                                             1                      3
                 Drilonereis tenuls                                                                       1                      5
                 Diopatra cuprea                                                                          1                      1
                 Parapionosyllis lonqicerrata                                                                                                    8
                 Syllis #1                               1                  1                                                    1
                 Exogene
                 Oligocheate 1                                   11       10                    14                       3       6      1        3
                                                                          25                              2
                                                                            I
                 Nemertines                                                 2                     1                     .1       1

             Table 2-2.  (cont'd

                                                  A (pilings)                  B (wall)                 C (rocks)_       D (bulkhead)
                                                2         3     4        1     2        3      4    2        3      4       1      2

            Mol I usca
            Nucula annulata                                                                    1             2     10       2      2
            Tellina agilis                      4         1     20                      1      6    1

            Gemma gemma                        357       87    2369                     2                    6      6       8     13
            Mercenaria mercenaria                                                                                                  I
            Crepidula fornicata                           1                                                         2              2
            Acteon caniculata                             2      17
            Mysella sp.?                                  1

            Crustacea
            Ampelisca  verrilli                                                                                    14       1
            Ovalipes ocellatus
            Number of Species                   16       16      19                    14     17    4       13     21      10     20

                                                           2,8

                worms (Scoloplos robustus) and �Ri:o setosa. In the deeper beach samples

                on the edge of  the platform (C-4) the tubes of the large amphipod, @_Mk@_1_iscq,

                verrilli, were evident. q4Rjtelja SApLtat@@, a polychaete sometimes identi-

                fied as a pollution or stress indicator was present in this area. Only 2

                hardclam juveniles and no sof tshell clams were found (Table 2-2).

                    The mid-depth samples contained from 21 to 31 species and 91 to 664

                individuals per sample. Dominant species included the bivalve, Tellina

                         the gastropods, Crepidula fornicata, and C. pLana,; the tube-dwelling

                amphipod crustacean, 3mpeli:.sca vadorum; and the polychaete               americana

                (bloodworm). The bivalve, Nucula annulata was found in the deeper, more

                silty samples. Hard clam juveniles were found in all mid-depth samples.

                -Di-scussion of Field Data.. The species present in the mid-depth samples were

                similar to those found in 1976. The numbers of individuals and species

                per sample was also similar   as shown below for matched samples.

                                              1976                              1980
                Location & depth      sta.    inds.     species         sta.    inds.    species

                Fry Cove 10'           15     609          37              6    664          31
                Fry Cove 10'                                               5    647          25
                Fry Cove 8'                                                4    333          25
                Fry Cove 12'           14     289          19              7      91         21
                Fry Cove 15'                                               11   261          17
                Fry Cove 15', 18'      13     333          26              8    510          28
                North of piers         10     473          32

                    Samples can al:3o be, compared in terms of the relative importance of each
                species within the samples by calculating a percent similarity index. This
                is calculated by summing the smaller percent abundance in which each species
                is found in the pair. Dtipticate samples often show a 70 percent simi.larity
                (Sanders, 1960). Duplicate samples 7 and 7Q had a 59 percent similarity.

                                                        2-9

                      Samples from a given bottom type often show a 30 to 40 percent similarity.

                  The values for three sample pairs taken in 1976 and 1980 fall within this

                  range.

                       Location                      Station                   % similarity
                                                  1976    1980

                      mid-depth                    15       5                       31.5
                      mid-depth                    14       7                       38.8
                      dredged channel              12       9                       31.3

                      All of preceeding comparisons indicate  that the mid-depth areas have

                  populations of bottom animals which are stable over seasons and years. This

                  stability may be the result of the presence of many bivalve and polychaete

                  species which live a year or more, the presence of adequate oxygen through-

                  out the year, and moderate wave effects. Heavy colonization by amphipods

                  of the species 3mpelis@ could occur at these depths as at the 1976 stations

                  off Allen Harbor.             This would change relative abundances but

                  not species makeup.

                      Any large change in the makeup of species or species numbers caused by

                  dredging could probably be detected in the mid-water areas. One problem

                  which exists is the unknown effects of the extensive hard clam fishery now

                  taking place there. It is likely that soft bodied tube dwelling polychaetes

                  will be at a disadvantage and that fast growing "opportunistic" species

                  such as the "coot clam" Mulinea lateralis will increase. Removal of competi-

                  tors and disturbance of the bottom may also increase setting of hard clams.

                      The mo st significant finding of the survey was the large decrease of

                  individuals and species in the deep areas. This is illustrated by data

                  from matching stations.

                                                         2-11

                                                1976                          1980

                     Location             sta.   inds.    species     sta.    inds.   species

                    Fry Cove channel      16      420       23           10     50         3
                    Dredged channel       12      411       32           9     110         5
                    Dredged channel       17      460       27
                    Turning basin         11      199       22           1      16         3
                    Turning basin                                        2      10         2
                    Turning basin                                        3       1         1

                    Additional qualitative samples examined in both years substantiated this

                    pattern.

                         The species which were abundant in 1976 were the bivales Nticula annulata,

                    Macoma tenta, and Mulinia lateralis and the polychaetes Pectinaria _&2.uldi@i_

                    and Spiochaetopterous oculatus. In 1980 moderate numbers of N. annulata and A.

                    abdita were found at stations 9 and 10 respectively, but only a few individuals

                    were found in the turning basin samples.

                         The bottom sediments in all deep areas was very incohesive and anoxic

                    below a few millimeters. Although the previously occurring species are

                    all adopted for life in relatively soft sediments, M.' lateralis.is a suspen-
                    sion feeder and might not be able to feed on excessively soft bottom while

                    the polychaetes occupy tubes and require some sediment stability.

                         The M. tenta population observed in 1976 probably consisted of animals

                    which had set and grown during the summer. This species may not in fact

                    be adapted for year round survival in very soft sediments.

                         The absence of attached shell pairs, "clappers", of the bivalves

                    indicated that these had not been recent mortalities. It is possible that

                    the animals in these areas were killed during a period of low oxygen levels

                    in a previous summer. The absence of animal activity would allow the

                    sediment to remain anoxic below the surface throughout the year.

                                                        2-11

                     An alternative explanation for bivalve reduction in Fry Cove channel

                 is the feeding of very large flocks of diving ducks during the winter.

                 Scaup species are abundant in the cove. They have a diverse diet which

                 varies with the availability of food species. In a Long Island Sound study

                  Cronan (1957) found that important animal food of scaups included the nut

                 clam, N. annulata the coot clam M. lateralis; the barrel bubble, Retusa

                 canaliculata; and  the blue mussel, @4yt@ilt@s.edulis. All these species are

                 present in Fry Cove. The small size and thin shell of M. tenera would

                 also make it a likely duck food. Scoters, which are usually found on the

                 open coast, sometimes enter the Bay where they feed on mollusks including

                 juvenile hard clams (Cronan and Halla,- 1968). Whether or not ducks are respon-

                 sible for the improverishment of the Fry Cove channel, they must have e   ffects

                 on bottom animals throughout the cove.

                     The beach area was first sampled quantitatively in 1980. These sample    s

                 show some overlap in species makeup with the mid-depth samples but all of

                 the dominant species are restricted to shallow stations and are known to

                 be characteristic of protected beach environments. The very dense popula-

                 tion of the small gem clam,  -Geama-&eE@ja,, at one station may have resulted from

                 concentration by waves and currents similar to that which was observed in

                 Charlestown Pond (Phelps, 1964). On Dogpatch Beach softshell clams are

                 restricted to a cove south of the Navy bulkhead and patches around boulders.

                 Apparently wave action and sand movement prevent establishment on the

                 open sand platform.

                                                      2-12

                    The shallow, sandy platform, mid-depth area, and deep channel will

                be affected differently by proposed development and respond to the changes

                indLfferent ways. The shallow sandy platform off Dogpatch Beach has a

                relatively high density of infaunal species, including some which are eaten

                by winter flounder and wading birds. Wave action prevents development of

                clam beds here. T his area would be eliminated by bulkheading and filling

                in Fry Cove.                           Shallow bottom adjacent to developed

                areas will be subject to mechanical disturbance and turbidity during

                construction, but wave action will return the topography and grain size

                to that existing previously.

                    The mid-depth area (much of it 10 feet deep) had the largest number

                of species and individuals. The species present and their.densities
                remained similar between the 1976 and 1980 sampling periods. Abundant crustaceans and

                small bivalves provide potential sources of food for winter flounder,

                and other fish and diving ducks. Significant populations of hard clams are

                found at these depths both north and south of the Davisville Pier.

                Portions of this area would be permanently lost by dredging. Mid-depth

                areas adjacent to a dredged channel would be subject to burial by slumping

                and sedimentation, to turbidity during construction, and to changes in

                sediment grain size and water quality following construction.

                    The deep areas (20-30 feet) with soft, organic bottoms have the lowest

                value to man in that harvestable bivalves and bottom animals eaten by fish

                are nearly absent. Infaunal populations were much lower in these areas in

                1980 than in 1976. Deep areas will receive fine grained sedimentation

                from dredging activities. Newly dredged channels will fill with soft sedi-

                ments and develop benthic populations similar to those found in the present

                dredged areas.

               2.3 Fisheries Resources                2-13

                     Shellfish and finfish are abundant in the waters off Quonset/Davisville.

               The area supports both commercial and recreational fisheries: soft shelled

               clams, quahogs, flounder, scup,striped bass,.bluefish, menhaden, lobster,

               conch and baitfish, North of the Davisville piers, the water is classified

               SA and shellfishing is permitted. Calf Pasture Point is an important quahoging

               ground. South of the Davisville piers in Fry Cove commercial quahogging has

               been active since the area was opened by the Department of Environmental

               Management in July 1980.

                     Data from routine Department of Natural Resources fish trawls northwest

               of the Davisville piers show that commercially important finfish species

               are present. Several part-time draggers from Newport and Wickford catch

               winter flounder, scup, fluke, butterfish, and baitfish in the area. Menhaden

               frequently school in waters adjacent to Quonset (Ganz, 1975). Sportfishing

               is extremely popular in the West Passage. Sisson (1970) reports that Wickford

               based sportsfishermen spend an average of 44.6 days a year fishing for blue-

               fish, striped bass, flounder, tautaug, scup, mackerel, and fluke, most of

               which is caught in the Quonset/Davisville vicinity.

                     The fisheries resources of Davisville area were inventoried by the R.I.

               DNR, Division of Fish and Wildlife (Ganz and Sisson, 1977; summarized in

               CRC, 1977). They mapped concentrations of softshell clams in the low inter-

               tidal immediately south of the Navy Bulkhead and among rocks halfway down

               Dogpatch Beach. Maximum density in these patches were similar to locations
               in Allen Harbor ( 42/m2). These areas have been used by recreational diggers

               since opening of the fishery in July 1980. The shore between Allen Harbor

                                                                                       2
               and Davisville Pier 2 had low densities of softshell clams (mean: 1.35/m  ,n=17)

               despite seemingly suitable conditions.

                                                       2-14

                     Hard clams are abundant in Fry Cove at subtidal depths. In the previous

                CRC report (1977) all the cove was shown as having abundant clams but this

                was based on only a few bullrake hauls. Since the cove has been opened it

                has been heavily fished by commercial quahogers. As many as 30 or 40 boats

                have been seen in the cove at one time during periods when preferred upper

                Bay areas have been closed. According to personnel of the RIDEM Enforcement

                Division, bullrakers have been concentrated off the Navy "wooden" bulkhead

                and the airport "steel" bulkhead. A high proportion of more valuable smaller

                clams (Mercenaria mercenaria) were reported off the steel bulkhead. Tongers

                working in shallower areas along the beach appeared to be recovering a

                higher proportion of larger clams. A few oysters are found on the rocks along

                Dogpatch Beach. They are most abundant where the Fry Pond culvert empties but

                are limited by availability of hard substrate and sand movement. At this loca-

                tion harvestable individuals were 90-110 mm in length and most had smooth

                eroded shells from the action of sand. About 15 percent had patches of sand

                within the inner shell resulting from sand being forced in by waves and

                covered by new shell. Near the bulkhead shells were heavily rust stained

                but the tissue appeared normal. The long double culvert to Fry Pond may be

                a source of oyster larvae. Fry Pond itself has little hard substrate for

                oysters.

                                                      2-15

                2.4 Effects of Development on Organisms

                    A long list of "potential" effects of development could be prepared.. It

                is believed that only removal, burial, and exposure to suspended sediments

                will measurably effect biota during construction. Pollutants are not present

                in the glacia 1 outwashed sediments which make up most of the volume to be

                dredged, and moderate pollutant levels in the sediments flooring the present

                dredged channels are not readily available to organisms. Deepening will

                change a number of sediment and water variables and will permanently change

                the makeup of the bottom community in the dredged area.

                Burial.  The fauna transported to bulkheaded disposal areas and the fauna

                within the bulkhead will be killed by deep burial and drying. Fauna around

                the dredging effluent and adjacent to unstable slopes may be subject to

                shallow burial,

                    Maurer et al. (1978) reviewed the literature on the ability of fauna to

                recover from burial and,report the results of their own experiments with

                estuarine species. They concluded that "many of the species tested ... showed

                a surprising ability to vertically migrate and survi ve remarkably well in

                relatively thick depths of native and exotic sediments under laboratory

                conditions."

                    The results of short-term burial experiments with characteristic estuarine

                species are summarized below. For each taxonomic group larger species are

                given first.

                                                  Bivalves

                    Mercenaria mercenaria (hard clam, juveniles, 1.5-2 cm) recover from 32 cm of
                sand at summer temp. Less recovery in silt/clay in summer, but no difference

                due to sediment type in winter (Maurer et al., 1978).

                                                      2-16

                    Mya arenaria (soft shell clam) recover from  10 cm sand in 2-10 hours.

                (Glude, 1954).

                    Nucula proxima (nut clam I cm) 90 percent and 32 percent reach the

                surface in 8 cm and 16 cm of silt/clay in one day (Maurer et al., 1978).

                    Gemma gemma (gem clam 0.8 cm) recovers from 23 cm sand, 5.7 cm silt

                (Shulenberger, 1970).

                                                 Polychaetes

                    _R122Atra_@;Epre@@ (tube dweller, 10 cm) recovers from 30 cm of sand

                (Myers, 1972).

                    Nereis succinea (burrower, 8 cm) rapidly recovers from up to 85 cm

                Maurer et al., 1978).

                    .@f2hty,@ Ancisa (burrower, 6 cm) rapidly recovers from at least 21 cm

                silt/clay (Saila et al., 1972).

                    Scol2plo@@.@.p_. (tube dweller, 4 cm) recovers in up to 30 cm of sand but

                have low recovery in 8 cm silt/clay (Maurer et al., 1978).

                    Strell @os jo benedicti (tube dweller, 1 cm) can recover from up to 6 cm

                silt/clay (Saila et al, 1972).

                                                  Crustaceans

                    Crangon sp.. (shrimp) swims through and above sediment slurry

                (Peddicord et al., 1975).

                    Neopanope sayi (xanthid crab, 2.3 cm) moves upward through unconsolidated

                sediment but become trapped if migration is delayed (Maurer, et al. 1978).

                    In summary recovery from burial is greater in larger species. Poly-

                chaetes seem to be particularly well adopted for recovery while some crus-

                tacea may become trapped by moderate burial. Species adapted for either silt/

                clay or sand have difficulty moving through the other sediment type.

                                                       2-17

                     These results indicate that most motile benthic species in the

                Davisville area will    attain the surface after burial at the rate of a few

                cm a day such as might occur from effluent release. Attached species

                would be affected by shallow burial,but these are restricted to intertidal

                rocks and bulkhead and a few subtidal boulders. In the intertidal areas

                wave motion will tend to prevent permanent deposition of fine sediment.

                     Burial by sediment slumps and flows at the construction site to a depth

                of 1-10 cm would kill some small species but some larger worms and bivalves

                including hard and softshell clams would reach the surface.

                S.uspended Sediment. Suspended sediment could potentially cause mortality by

                clogging the gills of aquatic animals, it could also reduce the efficiency

                of filter feeding, and cause avoidance by swimming fish. The following

                table summarizes the results of laboratory exposure experiments with species

                and genera present in the Davisville area. In general very high sediment

                concentrations are necessary to cause mortality, even in static tests which

                introduce additional stress. The larvae and juveniles of open water fish

                were much more sensitive than adults of species occupying shallow

                channels. The Bay scallop was the most sensitive of the commercially impor-

                tant bivalves tested (Table 2-4).

                     Pumping rates of bivalves and ingestion rates of planktonic copepods

                are reduced by suspended sediment concentrations of around 100 ug/l.

                Recovery of adults will take place when turbidity is reduced, but larvae

                may have decreased survival and settling success if growth is retarded.

                                                            2-18

                 Table 2-3. Response of marine fauna to suspended sediment.

                 Bioassays

                      Sherk et al. (1973) 24 hr. static test, percent survival

                 1. Fundulus majalis (striped killifish)                    90% in 47,000 mg/l silt

                 2. Fundulus heteroclitus (mummichog)                       90% in 24,470 mg/l silt
                 3.  Tautogolabrus adspersus (cunner)                       90% in 10,000 mg/l fullers
                                                                              earth

                 4.  Morone americana (white perch larvae)                  50% in 3,750 mg/l natural
                                                                              sediment

                 5.  Morone saxatilis (striped bass larvae)                 50% in 4,850 mg/l natural
                                                                              sediment

                 6.  Menidia meni  dia (Atl. silversides)                   90% in 580 mg/l fullers earth
                 7.  Pomatomus saltatrix (bluefish juv.)                    90% in 800 mg/l fuller's earth

                      Peddicord and McFarland (1978) 91 day flowing water test, percent survival.

                 1. Mytilus edulis (blue mussel)                            80% in 15,500 mg/l clean silt

                 2.  Crangon niqricauda (shrimp)                            85% in 19,700 mg/l clean silt
                 3.  Cancer magister (Dungeness crab)                       62% in 9,200 mg/l contaminated
                                                                              sand/silt (mortality during
                                                                              molting)

                      Raytheon Co. (1974) 96 hour static test, no mortality observed at         the
                 given concentrations of fine fraction of natural sediments.

                 1. Mercenaria mercenaria (quahog)                          83,200  mg/l

                 2.  Mercenaria mercenaria larvae                           10,200  mg/l

                 3.  Mlya arenaria (soft shell clam)                        83,200  mg/l

                 4.  Crassostrea virginica (oyster)                         83,200  mg/l
                 5.  Crassostrea vir inica larvae                             9,600 Mg/I

                                                     2-19

               Table 2-3.  (cont'd. )

               6. Pecten irradians (bay scallop)                      500 (50% survival at 96 hrs.
                                                                        1,760 mg/1)

               7. Pecten irradians larvae                          10,000 mg/l

               8. Homarus americanus (lobster)                     20,400 mg/1

               9, Pseudopleuronectes americanus (winter flounder)    20,000 mg/l

               Sublethal Effects

                    Davis (1960) and Davis and Hindu (1969) growth and survival of clam
               and oyster eggs and larvae reduced at 125 mg/l suspended matter.

                    Loosanoff (1961) pumping rate of oyster reduced at 100 mg/l suspended matter

                    Sherk et al. (1976) reduction in ingestion rates of algae by estuarine
               copepods.

               1. Eurytemora affinis                                 55% in 250 mg/1 silt but
                                                                       stimul ated at 100 mg/l

               2. Acartia tonsa                                      50% in 100 mg/1 silt

                                                                                          3-1

                                          3   SUSPENDED SEDIMENTS

               1.1 Introduction

                     Hydraulic dredging will be used to transport sediments from the channels

                to bulkhead and stockpile areas. Available equipment produces a slurry with

                about 13% solids. Without confinement much of the fine grained fraction would

                return to the estuary in runoff. Containment within dikes with  long retention

                times and with shallow "skimming" type outlet weirs will provide retention

                of all but clay size particles. The degree of attention placed on control of

                suspended sediments will depend on the grain size and pollutant level of the

                dredged material and on the sensitivity of the aquatic environment in the

                effluent area.

                     Suspe*nded sediments are usually asource of concern where hydraulic

                dredging is being carried out. While this is to some extent the result of

                the visability of turbid water plumes, there are many ways in which

                suspended sediments would potentially effect marine life. Natural turbidity
                levels and patterns of resuspension must be known in order to project the

                impact of dredging on the environment and to determine whether dredge-

                produced turbidity will be detectable. During this project field data on

                water clarity was obtained on three occasions. These data are compared with

                the results of other studies in Narragansett Bay. Research on the effects

                of suspended sediment on estuarine fauna and the effect of burial by water

                deposited sediment on fauna are summarized in the previous section.

                3.2 Field Collections
                     On March 4, May 28, and June 24, 1980 water clarity was measured at 10

                stations along three transects extending approximately one mile from Fry

                Pond outlet, Davisvill e Pier 1, and Allen Harbor entrance (Fig. 3-@. The

                        ALLEN
                         HARSO                                        16
                                                         13       (016                 21
                                                         12                         021

                                                              4e

                      DAVISVILLE
                                                             18'
                            PIERS                            I

                                                  2
                                               04) io-
                                                                                   @24
                                                               W24                     23

                                                                SO
                           FRY COVE

                                                    21          -W2
                                                              1(9               @   k,'-'
                                                 WE                5                26

                   Figure 3-1. Location of   turbidity stations  (circled numbers) and
                                 surface/bottom values of percent light transmission
                                 per meter obtained March 5, 1980.

                                                      3-2

                instrument used was a Martek XMS transmissometer with a one meter path length

                and white light. Depth and temperature sensors were attached to the trans-

                missometer. Percent transmission versus depth and temperature versus depth

                were recorded on a portable X-Y recorder during lowering and raising of the

                instrument package. On May 28 surface and subsurface water samples were
                taken through a tube attached to the transmissometer into an evacuated flask.

                Particles were collected on 8 Pm nucleopore and 0.45 = millipore filters

                for microscopic examination.

                Results

                     Winter conditions were found on the March 5 sampling trip. Water

                temperatures were between O'C and I'C and except for a small near-bottom

                temperature inversion at some stations ( 0.25'C), there was no vertical

                stratification. At the surface the clearest water was found offshore and down-

                bay. The most turbid water occurred on the shallow shelf off Calf Pasture

                Point (Fig. 3-1). Turbidity was vertically homogeneous except at station

                3 and 9 where there was a clear water layer near the bottom and at station

                7 in Fry channel where the bottom layer was turbid. Light transmission was

                generally high for Narragansett Bay (13-28%/m) and indicated a low level of

                phytoplankton and the absence of recent storms.

                     On the May 28 sampling date a strong thermocline occurred at a depth of

                10-15 feet (Fig.3-2). At most stations there was a marked increase in

                turbidity at the ther mocline from surface values of 10-15%/m to 0-2% in deeper lay-_

                er.s (Fig, 3-3, Table 3"1). At station 7 in Fry Cove channel transmission/m decreased

                regularly with depth from surface to bottom. At station 9 in the dredged

                channel surface water was more turbid than water immediately over the thermo-

                cline. Surface and bottom turbidities were similar throughout the study

                area except in shallow water off Calf Pasture Point where turbidity increased.

                                   TEMPERATURE, OC

                     ALLEN HARBOR

                     W
                     W
                     U-                                                 15

                     CL  20-
                     19  3-01       STATION                    2
                     DWISVILLE PIERS

                     STATION                                5                  6
                      FRY COVE

                     STATION                  8                              10

                    Figure 3-2. Temperature sections, May 28, 1980. 11:20-12:30,
                                Low tide 12:53 DST.

                               TRANSMISSION, %/METER

                       ALLEN HARBOR

                       W                              S
                       W     0-
                       U.
                                                                        .10
                            10-
                           20-
                       L
                       CW  301       STATION         1           2               3
                       DAVISVILLE PIERS

                                            S

                                            :kj-

                       STATION                                                  6
                       FRY COVE

                       STATION    7             8                             10

                    Figure 3-3. Turbidity sections, may 28, 1980. 11:20-12;30, Low
                                 Tide 12:53 DST. Wind 5-10 knots NW "S" indicates
                                 water sampling station. Stippling indicates relatively
                                 turbid water.
                                              -15-

                                             4

        IEIE@m M M @ @ M mm M @ @ M = M M M @

                Table 3-1   Transmission (%/m) and temperature (*C) of surface and bottom water in the Davisville area.

                                                         MARCH 5                       MAY 28                       JUNE 24
                                                   Trans          Temp           Trans         Temp           Trans          Temp
                  Station       Depth (Ft.)    Surf     Bot    Surf   Bot   Surf    Bot    Surf- Bot       Surf   Bot    Surf    Bot

                1 Off Allen H.        6          13      12    0.5    0.5     6      3      16     13.4

                2                   18           16      16    0.5    0.8     8     0.5    15.1    12.6

                3                   27           21      21    0.7    1.0   11.5    1.5    14.7    12.5
                4 Off DV Dock       29           21      20    0.5    0.5   15.5     0     15.5    12.2     9      0     19.8    16.5

                5                   29           25      24    0.2    0.5   14       2     14.9    12.5

                                    25                                               1     15.2    12.7
                6                                24      23    0.2    0.5   15
                7 Fry Cove          20           20      14    0.5    0.5   13       0     15.3    12.2     9      0     19.3    18.2
                8                   10           21      21    0.5    0.5   10       0     15.7    13.0
                9                   30           22      25    0.0    0.0   8.5     1.5    15.2    12.5

                10                  25           28      26    0.0    0.0   14       1     15.1    12.6

                                                      3-4

               Water sampled at station 4 showed an abundance of organic detritus and copepod

               fecal pellets in the turbid deep layer.

                    Two profiles were made on June 24 in the turning basin and in Fry

               channel (station 7). Surface warming had continued and the thermocline

               was thicker and deeper than in May. The turbidity pattern was very different

               from that found in May (Fig. 3-@. The surface was turbid, almost certainly

               from high concentrations of phytoplankton. Within the thermocline the water

               was relatively clear, but turbidity increased rapidly in a thermally homo-

               geneous bottom layer.

               3.3 Discussion

                   Seasonal and spatial pattern. At the study site the water was clearest in
               March despite the frequency of winter storms. The surface values of 13-28%
               transmission/m compares well with values of 17-22% recorded at the Graduate
               School of Oceanography dock during calm periods in January and February
               (Pratt and Heavers, 1975). In the G50 dock study, storms reduced trans-
               mission to zero, but recovery was complete within 3-4 days. Oviatt and
               Nixon (1975) measured sedimentation in Narragansett Bay with traps collected
               at weekly intervals. They concluded that forces responsible for sediment
               resuspension and deposition operated over shorter time periods. The shortness
               of episodes of sediment transport suggest that most particles have settling
               rates faster than clays. Oviatt and Nixon, and Collins (1974) both fou nd that

               most suspended particles in the Bay were silt size.
                    In both the May and June records there was a near-bottom layer of
               turbid water. Since conditions were presumably calmer than in March this
               layer must form as a result of input of low density detritus from.organic
               production,and stratified conditions leading to concentration in bottom
               layers. Tidal currents rather than waves keep the particles in suspension.

                                        TURNING BASIN

                     TEMPERATURE,OC                  TRANSMISSION, %/METER
                 21     20 19 18 17                       10             5              0
           W   0
           W
           It 10
           x
           I--                           - . -R::
           (L 20.
                 L

                                 FRY CHANNEL (STA.7)

                     TEMPERATUREv OC                 TRANSMISSION, %/METER
           W
           W       21 20 1.9 18- 17                       10             5              0
           U.   0
           e
              10-
           a.
           W
               20

                    Figure 3-4. Turbidity and temperature profiles at two locations,
                                 June 24, 1980. Dashed lines show relationship of
                                 temperature and turbidity features.

                                                      3-5

                    Particle concentration. Concentration of suspended matter was not

               measured in this study. It is only possible to-convert light transmission

               values to dry weight concentrations if the makeup of particles does not

               change. Changing proportions of small particles and organic matter (with

               large light stopping area relative to weight) complicates the relations-hip.

               Measurements in Narragansett Bay and Rhode Island Sound by Pratt and Heavers

               (1975) suggest the following approximate transmission-concentration conver-

               sions: 20%jm=1-2 mg1l; 10%/m = 3.5 mg/l; 5%/m=4.5 mg/l; and 2%/m=5 mg/l.

               Concentrations in the Davisville area derived in this way range from 1-5 mg/l.

               These levels,are comparable to Morton's (1972 winter) Baywide mean of 3.7 mg/1

               and Collins', (1974) Baywide surface and bottom means of 1.1 and 3.2 mg/l.
               (both authors removed some organic matter from the samples). Tur  bid bottom

               water from the upper Bay with less than 1%/m transmission contained 21.6 mg/l

               of suspended matter (Pratt and Bisagni, 1976).

                    No transmissometer or suspended particle measurements were made in the

               study area during storms.  Water along Calf Pasture Point becomes visibly

               turbid when waves from the northeast erode shallow silty sand. It seems

               likely that concentrations of suspended matter may reach levels typical of

               an exposed English coast (50 mg/l, Newton and Grey, 1972) or the most turbid

               parts of Chesapeake Bay (over 100 mg/l, Schubel, 1972). It can be assumed

               that estuarine animals in the Davisville area are exposed to such high levels

               of turbidity for periods of a day or two following storms.

                    Turbidity produced by dredging. Hydraulic cutterhead dredges creates

               suspended solid levels below "a few hundred mg/1" only in the immediate

               vicinity of the dredging site according to Peddicord and McFarland (1978).

               Much more suspended matter is released in the dredge effluent. Palermo et   al.
               (1978) analyse the design, operation, and management of spoil containment

               areas. They state that a well designed containment area can reduce suspended

               matter from 145 g/l (13% sediment) to 1-2 g/l in effl uent from

                                                    3-6

               silt/clay spoil. The rate of release of effluent depends on dredge size,

               pipeline length, dredging depth, and hours per day of operation. For a

               medium size cutterhead dredge with 18" outlet pipe roughly 5,000 cubic
               yards of effluent are produced per hour. If 2000 mg/l of sediment in the
               effluent remained in suspension it would be necess ary to dilute it 43 times
               with 5 mg/l water to achieve a concentration of 50 mg/l, a "high natural"

               level. Each hour 44 acres of water 9' deep would be needed for dilution.

                    The actual concentration of spoil-derived sediments in Bay waters will

               depend on distance from the discharge, mixing rate, and settling rate of
               particles. No field observations of water circulation have been made in the

               Davisville area. The circulation model of the area.-prepared by Isaji

               (1977) shows no-Kth and s.outh.tidal flows entering Fry Cove and the

               Allen Harbor entrance cove, but at a reduced velocity. Small gyres flowing

               contrary to tidal flow formed in the southwest corner of Fry Cove. When the
               model was run with dredged depths similar to development alternative 1,

               current velocities were further reduced in the deepened area.

                    Reduced velocities and partially closed circulation would allow suspended

               sediment to settle within the coves. Containment seems to be best developed

               in Fry Cove. It appears from the model that during flood tide water and
               suspended sediment from Fry Cove would enter the main west passage flow and

               not be carried directly into the Allen Harbor entrance cove.
                    When hydraulic dredging effluent is discharged into water without
               containment, a fluid mud may be formed on the bottom with up to 20 g/1 sediment.
               Ponded deposits of this material will kill sessel animals and will not support
               larger motilespecies (Peddicord and McFarland, 1978). It is possible that a
               limited volume of fluid mud could collect in the Fry Cove channel and the
               dredged channels and basins from either containment area effluent or sediment

               released by the cutterhead.

                                                       3-7
                     In summary it may be concluded that the maximum concentrations of suspended

                sediments to which organisms. will be exposed are 1-2 g/l (1000-2000 mg/1) in

                the immediate area of the containment area effluent. Suspended sediment

                levels within the coves would be an order of magnitude higher than background

                under calm conditions and similar to storm conditions.

                     Effects of alternative designs. Most of the material which would be

                dredged in any of the suggested designs would consist of water-deposited

                glacial sediments containing no organic matter or chemical pollutants. Small

                volumes of estuarine sediments and recent channel-bottom fillings contain

                moderate levels of pollutants which tend to remain adsorbed to particles.

                We are not concerned with toxic pollutants but with the visual quality of the

                water and the effects of suspended sediment and changes in bottom sediment

                type on organisms.

                     It is most likely that effluent will be released into Fry Cove (designs

                1,2,3,5,6). There will be a tendency for suspended particles to remain within

                the cove. Fine material deposited on shallow sandy bottom (less than 10'

                depth) will be subject to resuspension. It is unlikely that there would be

                a permanent change in grain size in these areas. Ultimately, fine sediments

                will be deposited in natural deep areas and dredged channels where they will

                contribute to the softness of the bottom. Layers of dredge derived material

                might be identifiable from absence of organic matter. Clay size particles

                will be transported the greatest distance and may be deposited in silt/clay

                bottom within the bay or be carried outside the bay. From April to October

                water density stratification will inhibit upward mixing of sediments in near-.

                bottom water. Locating discharge points near deeper areas might speed the
                deposition of sediment in natural settling basins and reduce effects on

                                                     3-8
              organisms in shallow water. It is unlikely that high concentrations of
              suspended matter could reach Allen Harbor or Calf Pasture Point beach from

              Fry Cove.

                   Release of effluent from a bulkhead north of the Davisville Piers

              (design 4) would create temporary turbidity in the Allen Harbor entrance
              cove and off Calf Pasture Point. Some sedimentation within Allen Harbor  is
              likely. Release into the turning basin or newly dredged channel would induce
              settling in deeper water and also aid dispersion by north-south tidal currents.

                11. POLL2JTION

                4.1. Introduction

                     in this scetion data is giveti oii the pollunints prosent W Lhe sedillivilt

                which may be dredged and on the likelihood of pollutant release from sediments

                during dredging. The levels of pollutants in sediment and fauna of areas

                adjacent to the proposed dredged area are tabulated as a basis for moni-

                toring future development. The pollutant status within the present dredged

                channels and developed area is used to-project conditions which will be

                found in future dredged channels.

                     The Quonset/Davisville environmental assessment (CRC, 1977) directed

                concern toward the possible effects of a large industrial dump on the

                environment of Allen Harbor. A number of studies on pollutants and the condi-

                tion of fauna in the Harbor have been carried out since that report was

                released. Data from those studies are summarized here as baseline data for

                monitoring during development outside the Harbor and to guide future

                management of the Harbor itself.

                     Pollutant data is presented by subject and then discussed in terms of

                alternative development plans.

                4.2. Pollutant Data

                Yater  ality. The Rhode Island Department of Health conducted a bacterio-

                logical survey of the Quonset/Davisville area between August 1975 and
                November 1976 (RIDH  1976). Surface water samples were taken at 11 stations

                on 6 dates. Tests were also run on samples from streams flowing into

                Fry Pond and from the pond outlet in August 1976. A summary of results

                for stations near Davisville are given inTable 4-1.

                                                          4-2

                  Table 4-1. Water quality data for the Davisville area.
                              (See Figure 4-1 for station locations).

                  Estuarine areas sampled on six occasions, August 19, 1975, Nov. 30, 1976.
                  Summarized from RIDH, 1976.

                                           Dissolved Oxygen                   Fecal Coliform/100-ml
                                      min            max           median
                     Station       mg/l  % sat. mg/l    % sat. mg/l    % sat. min max median

                  5 off airport                                                 3-    3-    3.5-
                  6 Fry Cove        6.4    91     12.0   118     8.85   100     3-    9     3-
                  7 off D.V. piers                                              3-    9     3-
                  8 off Allen H., 3.2      93     11.8   116     8.7    108     3-    9     3-
                  9Allen Harbor                                                 3-    4     3-

                  Fry Pond areas sampled August 4, 1976, RIDH unpublished data.

                                                                         MPN /100 ml
                               Station                        total coliform          fecal coliform

                  brook to pond, Pond  and Newcomb Rd.             2300                     90
                  brook to pond, near  bld. 884                    2300                    2300
                  24" pipe to pond                                < 23                    < 23
                  Fry Pond outlet                                   230                   < 23

                                                            WATER QUALITY
                         2,3
                                                         0 METALS IN BIVALVES
                            9
                    OV.   i6.9                           0 METALS IN SEDIMENT
                                                        0 HYDROCARBONS IN
                                                 Ae
                       -4                         08                      SEDIMENT
                       :-:13

                                                  024

                                                            18

                                                 27
                                                      7
                                                  7   4:`
                                                      0
                                                        27A

                              06
                             2 rc 025
                                                                 @0

                                                            %%
                        CULVERT
                                 9
                                 06

                                                              :5
                                                              10:
                                                   (A5                                    _j

                  Figure 4-1.   Station locations for water and sediment quality samples.
                                Water quality and metals in bivalves (Rhode island
                                Department of Health) metals in sediment and hydrocarbons
                                in sediment (27A, 27 this study). Hydrocarbons in sedi-
                                ments (5-9. CRC, 1977).

                                                     4-3

                     Oxygen concentrations were high on all dates as expected for that

                portion of the Bay. Concentrations may have been lower in bottom water.

                however. Olsen and Lee (1979) show July (1972) bottom values of 3-4 mg/I

                beneath surface water with 6-8 mg/l. During the summer vertical stratifica-

                tion.partially isolates bottom water and oyxgen may be consumed by degrada-

                tion of organic matter in bottom water and on the bottom. Sensitive animals

                are affected by oxygen levels of less than 2 ml/l.

                     Fecal coliform bacteria were found in ve ry low concentrations in the

                Bay and Allen Harbor samples. All samples had most probable numbers of

                less than 9/100/ml/l. The maximum count for SA waters is 70/100 ml/l. A

                small stream entering Fry Pond had high coliform levels which were reduced

                within the Pond.

                    Fry Cove was closed to shellfishing for a number of years because of

                possible contamination from houses on the Dogpatch Beach bluff and the

                presence of berthed vessels at the adjacent piers. Following a conserva-

                tive policy the RIDH did not open the cove to shellfishing until July

                1980, despite the abandonment of the housing in 1974 and negative

                bacteriological tests in 1977.

                     Coliform bacteria were uniformly low in hard clams from Narragansett

                Bay north of Allen Harbor (Mount View, Table 4-5). Levels in both hard

                clams and soft-shell clams from Allen Harbor in 1976-1977 are clearly

                higher (Table 4-4). Sources of bacteria at that time may have included

                buildings in the vicinity of the harbor and in its watershed and vessel

                discharge. The intestinal bacteria of seabirds also gave positive coliform

                tests.

                                                     4-4

                 Hydrocarbons in Sediments. High sediment hydrocarbon levels in the upper
                 Bay resulting from sewage effluents and oil spills decrease gradually down-
                 Bay. There are additional potential sources in the Davisville area including
                 effluents, spills, and dumping from both land and water based activities.
               .As part of the initial Quonset/Davisville impact study Brown and Franklin
                 (1977) obtained total hydrocarbon levels of 100-641 ug/g dry weight from

                 different environments in the Davisville area (Table 4-2).
                   1Additional hydrocarbon analyses were carried out during this study by
                 the Graduate School of Oceanography Organic Geochemistry Laboratory. The
                 goals of these analyses were to allow comparison with data which the labora-
                 tory has obtained from throughout Narragansett Bay and to gain insight into
                 the sources and makeup of materials which will be deposited in the proposed

                 dredged channels.
                     Duplicate analyses were carried out on a surface sample obtained from
                 the Davisville turning basin, June 1980. Results and preliminary discussion
                 by Quinn, Requejo, and Pruell are given in Appendix 3. A data summary is

                 given in Table 4-2.
                     The concentration of total hydrocarbons from the turning basin was 934
                 ug/g dry weight, significantly higher than in fine-grained natural sediments
                 of surrounding areas studied by Hurtt (1978) of 359,356 and 246 ug/g. This
                 is also an order of magnitude higher than levels in intertidal sediments in
                 Allen Harbor sampled in 1980 (Table 4-2). The high total hydrocarbon level
                 in the turning basin probably results from deposition of fine grained organic

                                                      4@5

                particles with adsorbed hydrocarbons from both upper Bay and local sources.

                The presence of benzotriazoles (BTAs) from a source on the Pawtucket River,

                Warwick demonstrates down-Bay transport.

                     The eleveted levels of specific aromatic hydrocarbons and total hydro-

                carbons suggest additional sources in the Davisville area. Sources may

                include compustion products in used lubricating oils and weathered fuel

                oil. Identified aromatics were 83 times higher in the turning basin than

                in Allen Harbor; total hydrocarbons were 12 times higher; and BTAs only 6

                times higher.

                    The classification scheme used in Connecticut allows dredged material

                with less than 500 ug/g hexane soluble fraction (oil and grease) to be dis-

                posed of at sea without protective measures. Total hydrocarbon level

                equivalent to this is higher than the 934 ug/g found in Davisville sediments.

                Davisville sediments are "clean" when compared to polluted harbors in  New

                England, but are "dirty" compared to immediately adjacent parts of Narragansett

                Bay. Since hydrocarbons are strongly adsorbed to particulate matter, a

                dredging and disposal technique which controls release of sediment would

                also contain hydrocarbon pollutants.

                    Baseline data from Allen Harbor is of interest because of the use of the

                harbor for shellfishing and the potential for pollutant introduction from the

                former dump on its shores.

                                                                                                                      4-6

                        Table 4-2.. Sediment hydrocarbon concentration in the Davisville area

                        Brown and Franklin, 1977. rep             licate subtidal samples, 0--3", October 1976
                                                                  ug/g   THC           % sand, silt, clay (CRC, 1977)

                                Allen Harbor                      395    641                3       69        28
                                Channel to A.H.                   196    100
                                Davisville Piers                  294    311                8       53        39
                                Fry Cove Channel                  103    427                8       66        26
                        Brown et al., 1979.         samples from Allen         Harbor intertidal         flat

                                                                  ug/g THC
                                4/6/77                            a                 b            c         composite
                                0-3't                             107               186*          65          286
                                3/6t'                             228               272          101

                                                                                       *Franklin, unpublished.

                                4/77 (from Fig. 2)

                                0-311                             205
                                3-611                             100
                                6-9t'                             60
                                9-12"
                        Appledorn et al,       1979. Allen        Harbor flat (ug/g THC)
                                10/77                             67     101        sampled April 1980. All values
                                                                                         ug/g dry weight

                        Quinn and Pruell, unpub. Allen Harbor flat

                                     identified           total              total
                                       aromatics       aromatics       hydrocarbons          BTA's phthalate
                         0-2 cm         0.117               4.7              75.2            0.124         0.114
                        18-20 cm        0.129               2.6              46.9              --          0.036
                        26-28 cm        0.541               9.4              50.1                          1.192
                        Quinn, Requejo and Pruell, unpub. Davisville turning                        basin, sampled June 1980.
                                All values ug/g dry weight average of duplicate analysis.

                                     identified          total               total
                                       aromatics        aromatics      hydrocarbons           BTA's      phthalate

                          0-10 cm       9.769             60.0               934             0.699           1.17

                                          ALLEN HARBOR

                                    D.Y M.P.-
                                                      SECTION

                                        oFLAT

                                                100

                             '0100*01*000,000 0* 0 0000 *04),0610800,016 WkSILI
                           000             00   0

                           ORGANIC
                           SILT- CLAY            SAND.                   TILL
                   4
                                                          ??

                   9

                   Figu::e 4-2.  Allen Harbor stiatigraphy and location of sammp@ss, a
                                 granular silt layer, 1--riought to be deDosited fr07. '-ydraulic
                                 dredging overflow, overlies estuarine sil---clay. Analyses
                                 were taken at the top and botto-c. of the silt layer (0-2 cm.,
                                                                      0004?00 0100 0.-
                                                             000t
                                                                        ...TILL

                                 18-20 c:a) and at the top of the silt-clay layer (26-28 cT.).

                                                    4-7

                   An intertidal flat in Allen Harbor (Figure 4-2) has been studied exten-

                sively in conjunction with a study of neoplastic disease in clams. Bro%'M

                et al. (1979) and Appeldoorn (1979) report total sediment hydrocarbon values

                ranging from 65-286 ug/g dry weight. Pratt (1977) noted that the flat

                appeared to be made up of hydraulically dredged sediment overlaying normal

                subtidal estuarine sediments, As part of this study samples were taken

                at three depths at two locations on the flat and analysed for hydrocarbons

                in an attempt to contrast conditions before and after the harbor was used

                for disposal. Results obtained by Quinn and Pruell are given in Appendix

                1 and are summarized in Table 4-2.

                   Benzotriazoles (BTAs) which have been produced since 1963, were found

                only in surface sediment. Total hydrocarbons and aromatic fraction of

                surface sediments were relatively low. The mid level sample was taken in

                the hydraulic fill, but below the level of animal activity; BTA's were

                absent, proving a pre-1963 data of deposition. The deepest sample contains

                total hydrocarbons levels similar to the surface but aromatic hydrocarbons

                and phthalate are relatively high. Apparently these pollutants had been

                deposited in the harbor in the early years of development and then buried

                by dredged material. Pre-development sediments were not sampled.

                   Brown and Franklin (1977) measured higher levels of phthalates outside

                Allen Harbor than within it. The removal or burial of sediments over the

                past 30 years may explain this distribution. The complex pattern of

                dredging and filling in the Davisville area will make any further under-

                standing of pollutant dynamics difficult to obtain.

                Metals in Sediments. There has been concern about metals entering the

                Davisville area through discharge of plating solutions at Quonset Point

                and dumping at the Allen Harbor dump. Eisler (1977) found elevated levels

                                                        4-8

                 of metals around Quonset Point and in deeper areas of adjacent West Passage.
                 It is likely that some metals from this source can be found in the dredged
                 channels at Davisville. Sediment samples from an intertidal area immediately
                 adjacent to the dump at Allen Harbor did not have high metal levels (EPA,
                 Narragansett analysis for CRC, 1977). Metal analyses of clams from Allen
                 Harbor suggest that there is higher than normal copper available in the
                 water column but that other metals are normal. Continued sedimentation,
                 dredging, and spoil deposition in Allen Harbor make interpretation of sedi-
                 ment contamination difficult (see discussion of hydrocarbons in sediments).
                     The proposed Fry Cove and dredging area consists of a thin layer of
                 reworked sand over sandy sediments deposited during glacial retreat. The
                 layer of estuarine sediment is thicker north of the piers. There is no
                 evidence of release of toxic effluents or dumping toxic solids in either

                 of these areas. It is very likely that these sediments contain high

                 levels of metals. Nevertheless a'small program of analyses of metals in

                 sediment has been conducted to provide data for future permitting processes,

                 to demonstrate any enhancement of metal deposition in dredted channels, and
                 to provide background information on this portion of the Bay. Sample

                 locations are shown in Fig. 4-1.

                     Elutriate tests were carried out on six samples to provide data for

                 future permit applications and to provide baseline informati-on. In these
                 tests sediment is shaken with Bay water and the water tested for released

                 metals. The test gives a more realistic measure of the impact of hydraulic

                 dredging effluent release than bulk sediment analysis does.
                     For five metals (barium, cadmium, chromium, mercury, and lead) all

                 test concentrations were below the limit of detectability of the analytic
                 method used. These results illustrate the low solubility of most metals

                                                      4-9

                in water: chromium in mid-bay sediments is 50-400 ppm (Olsen and Lee,

                1979), but was less than 0.2 ppm in the tests; lead in mid-bay sediments

                is about 1.00 ppm (Olson and Lee, 1979), but less than 1.6 ppm in the

                tests.

                   Copper was detectable in all the elutriate tests.. Concentrations

                ranged from 0.114-0.182 ppm. The absence of a relationship between con-

                centrati on and sediment type or sample location may indicate an unexplained

                analytic problem. The EPA pollution standard for copper is 0.005 ppm.

                 drocarbons in clams. A single value for concentration of hydrocarbons in

                soft-shell clams in the Davisville area was available at the time of the

                previous report. Additional values obtained by Brown et al. (1979) and

                Appledoorn et al. (1980) (Table 4-3) indicate that Allen Harbor levels are

                higher than those found in a southern Rhode Island barrier beach lagoon

                (Winnapaug Pond (30 vs 5 ug/g wet weight).

                    Quinn and Pruell analysed hydrocarbons in softshell clams from the

                same flat in Allen Harbor as part of this study (Appendix 2). -

                They found levels similar to those previously reported (37.9 and 30.2 ug/g

                wet weight). These levels can be compared with those of hard clams in the

                polluted Providence River measured by Boehm and Quinn (42 ug/g).

                    The pattern of abundance of specific aromatic hydrocarbons in Allen

                Harbor clams reported by Quinn and Pruell and by the U.S. Public Health

                Service is similar to that found in the sediments throughout the Bay.

                The major aromatic hydrocarbons phenanthrene, fluoranthene, and pyrene

                probably originate from the combustion of coal and,petroleum products

                (Quinn and Pruell, appendix 2

                                                          4-10

                  Table 4-3. Hydrocarbon concentration of soft-shell clams (Mya arenaria) from
                               Allen Harbor

                  CRC, 1977. Total hydrocarbons: 59.2 ug/g wet weight

                  Brown et al., 1979.
                        Total hydrocarbons of clams transplanted to and from Winnapaug Pond
                        (Table VIII) sampled in October 1977

                                                                                 approx.
                                                       ug/g dry weight        ug/g wet weight

                             Win. to Win.                       32                     4
                             A.H. to Win.                       60                     7
                             Win. to A.H.                      215                    26
                             A.H. to A.H.                      271                    33

                  Appeldoorn et al., 1980

                             Total hydrocarbons of clams adjacent to transplant experiment.

                                                                                approx.
                                                      ug/g dry weight       ug/g wet weight

                                   July                      125                     15
                                    October                  315                     38

                  Quinn and Pruell, unpub. Sampled April 1980, 15-20 clams/analysis,
                        concentrations ug/g wet weight

                             Identified         Total            Total
                             aromatics         aromatics       hydrocarbons       Benzotriazoles

                  mid cove       0.345           7.7                37.9               0.036
                  near navy      0.230          6.7                 30.2               0.049
                     dump

                                                     4-11

                    Appledoorn et al. (1980) found that Allen Harbor clams suffering from

                neoplastic disease had a hydrocarbon makeup similar to the sediment. Met-

                abolic dysfunction or stress appeared to have prevented these individuals

                from metabolizing or depurating hydrocarbons.

                Neoplasia in soft-shell clams. There is a high prevalence of neoplastic

                disease in soft-shell clams in Allen Harbor. This disease consists of a

                proliferation of abnormal blood cells and is often fatal to the clam.

                    Cooper (1979) described techniques of diagnosis and the stages of

                neoplasia in soft-shell clams and monitored disease levels in Allen Harbor

                at monthly intervals from July 1977 to March 1979. They found that adult

                clams were more susceptible than juveniles (Ist year)., During the study

                period incidence of neoplasia varied over a range of 19-43% with the

                highest levels in October and May and the lowest level in the summer.

                Neoplasm severity and clam mortality was highest in late winter.

                    Cooper found that the disease could be transmitted through the water

                and transplanted by injection. Other bivalves in Allen Harbor including

                hard clams did not have neoplasia. A virally induced disease specific

                to soft-shell clams would best fit these facts.

                    It has been suggested that pollution stress could have some effect on

                clam susceptability, but there was no clear cut relation of disease and

                environments studied by Brown et al. 1979. Polluted areas such as the

                Providence River had low incidences. It is possible that the high density

                of clams in Allen Harbor contributes to a high level of this transmitted

                disease. Since hydrocarbon pollutants in the surface sediments and metal

                levels in clams are not unusually high, it seems necessary to deemphasize

                pollutants and consider natural stress and disease transmission.

                                                        4-12
                      Appledoorn et al (1980) estimate that soft-clam production at Allen

                  Harbor was reduced by as much as one-fifth due to neoplasia. Soft-shell

                  clams have only been examined within Allen Harbor. Brown (1977) con-

                  ducted a histopathological examination of hard clams from south of Quonset

                  Point, Fry Cove, and Calf Pasture Point. These clams had no neoplasia

                  but did have unusual accumulations of lipofuscia pigment. Brown discussed

                  as possible causes of this accumulation ingestion and storage of

                  unsaturated hydrocarbons from natural sources or petroleum pollution and

                  metabolic disorders caused by pollutants. The equal incidence of this

                  condition at all locations would argue against the effect of a pollutant

                  from a point source.

                  Metals in Clams. It has been suggested that there could be high concen-

                  trations of heavy metals in sediments and organisms in the Quonset/

                  Davisville area as a result of discharge of metal plating solutions

                  (Eisler et al (1977, 1978) or of dumping of metal scrap at Allen Harbor

                  (CRC, 1977).

                      Eisler et al. found elevated metal levels in the widgeon clam (Pitar

                  morrhuana) near the former Naval Air Rework Facility outfalls at Quonset

                  Point. Metals which showed clear increased near the outfalls w  ere found

                  at normal concentrations in the Davisville area.

                      The Rhode Island Department of Health carried out a special study of

                  metals in clams in the Davisville area between December 1976 and June

                  1977. Station locations and a summary of data are shown in Figure 4-1

                  and Table 4-4.

                      Soft-shell clams were collected at four stations. In Fig. 4-3 metal

                  levels of clams are shown for the stations in order of distance from the

                  Allen Harbor dump. There is no trend for any metal. Except for one Fry

                                                                                                         N

                                                         4-13

                             Table 4-4.   Clam analyses, RIDH Allen Harbor Project

                                           Coliform bacteria         metals,ppm dry wt.
                  Date     Sta. Species        MPN/100 ul    Ph    Cd    Cr      Cu   Zn

                12/20/76     1   softshell       220         1.7  0.18 18.2 0.82      21.3
                12/20/76     4   softshell       140
                                                             2.2  0.20  19.3   1.17   26.8
                12/20/76     6   softshell       230         2.5  0.21  48.2   0.87   40.8

                3/21/77      2   hard              0        1.17  0.25  10.3   1.16   17.4
                3/21/77      2   softshell       110          --   --    --      --    --
                3/21/77      4   softshell        ?         1.62  0.16   --    0.62   18.0

                3/?/77       6   softshell       790         1.0  0.14  14.1   0.56     8.5
                3/?/77       4   softshell       330         1.1  0.09  11.4   0.52   12.5

                4/18/77      2   softshell       490          --   --    --      --    --
                4/18/77      3   hard            490          --   --
                4/18/77      2   softshell        0         0.31  0.16   --    0.42

                5/23/77      2   hard             ?         0.65  0.13   7.1   0.88   10.4
                5/23/77      1   softshell       330        1.3   0.11  17.5   0.76   11.5

                6/13/77      3   hard             90        0.74  0.08  12.7   0.31   11.2
                6/13/77      2   softshell       490        1.2   0.10  20.4   1.2    21.0

                                            M YA AffNARIA

              5                               5                             0. 5
                 Pb                              Cr                              Cd
              4-                              4-                        . 0.4-

              3-                              3-                        . 0.3-

              2.         0                    2-                            Q2 -   0    0            0
         CL        0     0                                                              0      0     0
         a.        0     0      0     0                   0     0     0     0.1-   0    0      0
            ob                                     8
         z                                                8     0     0
         0    01                .0    L-j     0A   I                  A-     0-                      a  I
                                2     6            1      4     2     6            1    4      2     6

         Cr   50-                           50-
                 Cu                   0          Zn                           I - NEAR
         z                                                            0            DUMP
         W 40-                              40-
         u                                                                    2- YACHT
         z                                                                         CLUB     ALLE N
         0    30-                           30                                                HARBOR
                - - - - - - - - - --                      0                   4- NORTH
              20-        0      0           20-    0            0                  COVE..O
                   8                               0      0
                                      0                                       6- D.R BEACH
              10-                             10-  0                  0
                                                                              --- FDA ALERT LEVEL
              0                               0    1      t     I     I
                   1     2      4     6            1      2    4      6

                  Figure 4-3.   Metal levels in soft shell clams (Ilya arenaria)(dry weight    at
                                four locations. (R.I. Dept. of Hea@ft-h-,, -Dec. -19, 1976-June. 1977).

                                                     4-14

                Cove sample, all metals are below FDA alert levels. Alert levels have fio

                relation to safety of consumption, but relate to regional norms.
                   Hard clams were sampled from one location in Allen Harbor. A baseline
                for assessing Allen Harbor values is provided by data from a location north
                of the Harbor monitored regularly by the RIDH. Data from January 1978 to

                March 1980-is available from that station (Table 4-5). Hard clams within
                Allen Harbor had metal levels similar to those from the reference station
                with the exception of copper which was higher (Fig. 4-4). Chromium and
                copper in Allen Harbor and chromium at the reference stations are at

                the FDA alert levels.
                   The copper increase in Allen Harbor is probably real since copper and
                co pper alloys can be seen in the former dump and copper bottom point is

                used on vessels moored in the harbor.
                   Phelps and Myers (1977) measured heavy metals in hard clams from clean
                and polluted locations in Narragansett Bay. They found that zinc levels
                remained the same in both areas, but that copper and chromium increased
                by about 3 times and cadmium and lead increased by about 0.7 times in the
                polluted area. For the Davisville samples it would appear that the con-
                stancy of zinc levels is due to physiological regulation by the clams and
                that zinc could not be a hazard to man or useful as a bioindication of
                pollution. The similarity of lead, chromium and cadmium in Allen Harbor
                and control clams indicate that the Harbor is not polluted with these

                metals. The elevated levels of copper in Allen Harbor clams is consistant
                with the presence of the metal in the dump and the ability of the clams

                to concentrate it.

                                                             4-15

                 Table 4-3. Hard clam analyses, RIDH, Station 9 of Mount View, North Kingstown

                                     Coliform bacteria                metals, ppm dry wt.
                       Date             MPN/100 ml             Pb     Cd       Cr     Cu      Zn

                 1978  Jan.                   0              1.18            0.08     6.1    19.7
                       March                  0              0.72            0.03     2.6      7.3
                       April                20               0.46            0.50     16.9   10.0
                       November             20                 --               0     2.18   19.04

                 1979  May                  20               0.45            0.06     1.09   27.4
                       June                 20               0.62            0,29     4.5    27.3
                       July                 20               0.55            1.89     0.18   17.3
                       Aug.                 20               0.91            0.10     4.9    18.4
                       Oct.                 20               0.54            0.16     3.56   17.3
                       Nov.                 20               0.47            0.12     3.8    23.7

                 1980  March                20               0.68     0.09   0.11     2.5    10.7
                       @March               20               0.59     0.11   0.13     0.71   13.44

                       FDA Alert levels, northern

                       hard clams                            4.0      0.5    1.0         10      65
                       softshell clams                       5.0      0.5    5.0         25      30

                                MERCENARIA MERCIENARIA

                    5   Pb'               25 -Cr                  05 r Cd
                    4                     2.o -                     04.

                                                            0

                                                            0
                    3                      1.5-                    0.3-
                                                            0                0
                                                    0       0
                                                            0
             a-     2-                      1.0          -0-       0.2-
             CL                                                              0
                            0     0                         0                     0
                                           0.5-                     0.1-     0    0
             z                                      0       0
             0      0   .........            0      0     a         0
                           2r3 MV                  2,3    Mv               2,3   MV
             Cr    25 -                     65
                        CU
             z                                   Zn
             w    20 -                      40
             0                                                        2,3   ALLEN
             z                    0                                            HARBOR
             0     15 -                    30-.
             0                                                        MV    MOUNT
                            0                               0                  VIEW
                   10 -                    20 -             41        ---FDA ALERT
                            0     0                         0                  LEVEL
                    5 -                    lo-              8 @-
                                  t                         0
                    01            0.        OR              IL  -1
                           2,3   MV                2*3    MV

                        Figure 4-4. Metal levels in hard clams (Mercenaria mercenari-a)
                                    in Allen Harbor (Stations 2,3 north cove, December 1976-
                                    June 1977); north of harbor (January 1978-March 1980).

                REFERENCES

                Anderson, F.E. 1972. Resuspension of estuarine sediments by small amplitude
                      waves. J. Sed. Petrol. 42:602-607.

                Appeldorn, R., R.S. Brown, K.R. Cooper, and C.W. Brown. 1980. The effects
                      of hematopeietic neoplasia and the environment on the soft-shelled
                      clam, ya arenaria. Unpublished manuscript, GSO, Univ. of Rhode Island.

                Brown, C,W. and F,E. Franklin. 1976. Sediment analysis of coastal Quonset
                      Point, R.I. Report to CRC,.Univ. of Rhode Island.

                Brown, C.W., J. Borges, R. Crane, V. Dunning, and F.E. Franklin. 1979.
                      Analytical chemistry contribution to the effect of various kinds of
                      contamination in the marine environment on the occurrence of neoplasia
                      in the soft-shell clam, )@.yA arenaria. Interim project report, Dept. Chem.,
                      Univ. of Rhode Island.

                Brown, R.S. 1977. Histopathological findings in P@ya  arenaria and Mercenaria
                      mercenaria sampled from Quonset Point/Davisville, ih_ocf@7Islan`d_._'T@c.
                      App. 4., The Redevelopment of Quonset/Davisville: An Environmental
                      Assessment. Coastal Resources Center, Univ. of Rhode Island.

                Brown, R.S., R.E. Wolke, C.W. Brown, and S.B. Saila. 1979. Hudrocarbon
                      Pollution and the Prevalence of neoplasia in New England soft-shell
                      clams Q@yA arenari-a). In Animals as Monitors of Environmental Pollu-
                      tants. Nat-.- Xcad. Sciences, Wash. D.C. pp. 41-51.

                Chang, B.D. and C.D. Levings. 1978. Effects of burial on the heart cockle
                      Clinocardium nuttallis and the Dungeness crab Cancer y@gis@@r..
                      'is-t-uarine *_@n_d_do`asui17'Mar. Sci. 7: 409-412.

                Collins, B.P. 1974. Suspended material transport in lower Narragansett Bay
                      and western Rhode Island Sound. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science
                      176: 33-44.

                Cooper, K. R. 1979. The hematopoietic neoplasm in the commercially impor-
                      tant bivalve mollusk !Iya@'arenaria. Ph.D. thesis Univ. Rhode Island,
                      Kingston, R.I., 116 pp.

                Coastal Resources Center. 1977. The redevelopment of Quonset/Davisville:
                      An Environmental Assessment. Coastal Resources Center, Univ. of
                      Rhode Island. 200 pp.

                Cronan, J.M. Jr. 1957. Food and feeding habits of the scaumps in Connecticut
                      waters. The Auk 74: 459-468.

                Cronan, J.M. Jr. and B.F. Halla. 1968. Fall and winter foods of Rhode
                      Island waterfowl. R.I. Dept. Nat. Res. Div. of Conservation. Wildlife
                      Pamphlet 1, 40 pp.

                                                      5-2

               .Davis, H.C. 1960. Effects of turbidity producing materials in seawater on
                      eggs and larvae of the clam (Mercenaria mercenaria). Biol. Bull.
                      (Woods Hole) 1: 48-54.

                 Davis, H.C. and H. Hidu. 1969. Effects of turbidity-producing substances
                      in seawater on eggs and larvae of three genera of bivalve mollusks.
                      Veliger 11: 316-323.

                 Eisler, R., et al. 1978. Metal survey of the marine clam Pitar morrhuana
                      collected near a Rhode Island electroplating plant. Mar. Biol., 45:
                      34-307.

                 Eisler, R.E. et al. 1977. Survey of metals in sediments near Quonset Point,
                      Rhode Island. Mar. Poll. Bull. 8: 260-264.

                 EPA/Corps of Engineers. 1977. Ecological evaluation of proposed discharge
                      of dredged material into ocean waters. U.S. Army Engineer WES,
                      Vicksburg.
                 @.az,z, A.R. 1975. Observations of the Narragansett Bay Menhaden Fishery,
                      1975. R.I. Department of Natural Resources: Division of Fish and
                      Wildlife, Leaflet No. 45.

                 Ganz, A. and R. Sisson. 1977. Inventory of the fisheries resources of the
                      Quonset/Davisville area, North Kingstown, Rhode Island. R.I. Dept.
                      Natural Resources, Leaflet 48.

                 Gilfillan, E.S. and J.H. Vandermeulen. 1978. Alterations in growth and
                      physiology of soft-shell clams, )nLa arenaria. Chronically oiled with
                      bunker C from Chedabucto Bay, Nova Scotia, 1970-76.     J. Fish. Res.
                      Board Con. 35: 630-636.

                 Glode, J. B. 1954. Survival of soft-shell clams, M@@ arenaria, buried at
                      various depths. Bull. Dept. Sea and Shore Fish ii@s_.Bufi. 22: 1-6.

                 FDA. 1977. Memorandum to J.L. Berber, N.E. Tech. Service Unit from J.B.
                      Lamb, Shellfish Sanitation Branch, FDA, Public Health Service.

                 Hurtt, A.C. 1978. The distribution of hydrocarbons in Narragansett     Bay
                      sediment cores. MS Thesis. Univ. of Rhode Island. 69 pp.

                 Isaji, T. 1977. Influence of dredging on water circulation in the vicinity
                      of Quonset/Davisville complex Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island. Report
                      prepared for CRC, Univ. of Rhode Island. 40 pp.
                 Lake, J.L., C. Norwood, C. Dimock, and R. Bowen. 1979. Origins of
                      polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in estuarine sediments. Geochem.
                      Cosmochem. Acta. 43: 1847-1854.

                 l'oosanoff, \1.1- 1961. Effects of stispended silL and o0ier std)stanc.cs oil
                      rate of feeding of'oysters. Science. 107: 69-70.

                 Maurer, D.L. et al. 1978. Vertical migration of benthos in simu   lated dredged
                      material overburdens; Vol. I Marine Benthos. U.S. Waterways Exp. Sta.
                      Vicksburg, Miss. DMRP Tech. Rept. D-78-3J 97 pp.

                                                       5-3

                 Morton, R.W. 1112. Spatial and temporal distribution of suspended sediment;
                      Narragansett Bay and Rhode Island Sound. Tech. Memo. 396 U.S. Naval
                      Underwater Weapons Research and Eng. Sta., Newport, R.I. 33 pp.

                 Nature. 1980. More tests required on new chemicals (news report), Nature
                      285: 60.

                 Newton, A.J. and J.S. Gray. 1972. Seasonal variation of the suspended solid
                      matter off the coast of north Yorkshire. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K.
                      52: 33-47.

                 Myers, A.C. 1972. Tube-worm sediment relationships of N2paqa c.@i2Lea,
                      (Polychaeta: Onuphidae) Mar. Biol. 17: 350-356.

                 Olsen, S. and V. Lee. 1979. A summary and preliminary evaluation of data
                      pertaining to the water quality of upper Narragansett Bay. Coastal
                      Resources Center, Univ. of Rhode Island. 189 pp.

                 Oviatt, C.A. and S.W. Nixon. 1975. Sediment resuspension and deposition
                      in Narragansett Bay. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science. 3: 201-217.

                 Palermo, M.R., R.L.. Montgomery, and E. Poindexter. 1978. Guidelin   es for
                      designing, operating, and managing dredged material containment areas.
                      U.S. Waterways Exp. Sta., Vicksburg, Miss. DMRP Tech. Rept. DS-78-10.
                      89 pp.
                 Peddicord,'R.K. et al. 1975. Effects of suspended solids on San Francisco
                      Bay organisms. Appendix G. Dredge disposal study San Francisco Bay
                      and estuary. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District.

                 Peddicord, R.K. and V.A. McFarland. 1978. Effects of suspended dredged
                      material on aquatic animals. U.S. Waterways Exp. Sta., Vicksburg,
                      Miss. DMRP Tech. Rept. D-78-29. 102 pp.

                 Phelps, D.K. 1964. Functional relationships of benthos in a coastal lagoon.
                      Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Rhode Island.

                 Phelps, D.K. and A.C. Myers. 1977. Ecological considerations in site
                      assessment for dredging and spoiling activities. In Proceed. 2nd
                      U.S.-Japan meeting on management of bottom sediments containing toxic
                      substances, Oct. 1977. EPA. Ecol. Res. Series, EPA-600-3-77-083.

                 Pratt, S.D. 1977. Benthic biology of areas adjacent to Quonset Point/
                      Davisville. Tech. App. The Redevelopment of Quonset/Davisville: An
                      Environmental Assessment. Coastal Resources Center, Univ. of R.I.

                 Pratt, S.D. and J.J. Bisagni. 1976. Monitoring results -- Providence River
                      dredging 1975. Rept. to N.E. Div., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
                      Grad. School Oceanogr. Univ. of R.I., Kingston, R.I. 34 pp.

                 Pratt, S.D. and R.M. Heavers. 1975. Background turbidity conditions of
                      Rhode Island Sound and Buzzards Bay. Rept. to N.E. Div., U.S. Army
                      Corps of Engineers. Grad. Sch. Oceanogr., Univ. R.I. Kingston, R.I.
                      69 pp.

    A

                                                     5-4

                Raytheon Company. 1974. A Study of the effect of marine sediments on the
                     survival of selected commercially important fish and shellfish of
                     Massachusetts. Rept. to Div. Mineral Resources, DNR, Mass. 30 pp.

                Rhode Island Department of Health, Division of Water Pollution Control.
                     1977. Bacteriological Survey of Quonset Point and vicinity. Typed
                     report, 25 pp.

                Saila, S.B., S.D. Pratt, and T.T. Polgar. 1972. Dredge spoil disposal in
                     Rhode Island Sound. Mar. Tech. Rept. 2 Univ. of R.I. 48 pp.

                Sanders, H.L. 1960. Benthic studies in Buzzards Bay, III. The structure
                     of the soft-bottom community. Limnol. Oceanog. .@: 138-153.

                Schenck, H. Jr. and A. Davis. 1973. A turbidity survey of Narragansett
                     Bay. Ocean Eng. 2: 169-178.

                Schubel, J.R. 1972. Distribution and transportation of suspended sediments
                     in upper Chesapeake Bay. -In Environmental Framework of Coastal
                     Plain Estuaries pp. 151-167. Geol. Soc. Am., Memoirs 133.

                Sherk , J.A., J.M. O'Connor, and D.A. Newmann. 1973. Effects of suspended
                     and deposited sediments on estuarine environments. In Estuarine
                     Research. L.E. Cronin (ed.), Academic Press. pp. 5-41-558.

                Sherk, J.A. Jr., J.M. O'Connor, and D.A. Newmann. 1976. Effects of sus-
                     pended solids on selected estuarine plankton. Report to U.S. Army
                     Coastal Engineering Research Center, Fort Belvior, VA. 50 pp.

                Shulenberger, E. 1970. Responses of Gemma @gemmi!@ to a catastrophic burial.
                     The Veliger- 13: 163-170.
                Sisson, R.T., 1970. A preliminary evaluation of the magnitude of the sport
                     fisheries in Narragansett Bay, 1970. R.I. Department of Natural Resources:
                     Division of Fish and Wildlife, Leaflet No. 34.

                Wilson, K.W. and P.M. Conner. 1976. The effect of china clay on the fish of
                     St. Austell and Managissy Bay. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K. 56: 769-7180.

                                                APPENDIX 1

              Allen Harbor Sediment Analysis
               September 10,1980
               J.G.Quinn and R.J.Pruell

                       Our interpretation of the*data (enclosed) is as follows:

                       0-2 cm section
                       Based on the presence of di-2-ethyl hexyl phthalate, (DEHP),, this
                 section was deposited after 1945.' Based on the presence of Benzotriazole B,
                 this section of the core was deposited after 1963. The f (.saturated)
                 and f 2(aromatic) hydrocarbons are relatively low in compIrison with other
                 areas of the bay. The major so'Urce of these hydrocarbons is probably a
                 combination of petroleum products and fossil fuel combustion products.

                       18-20 cm section
                       Based on  the absence of Benzotriazole B and low value of DEHP this
                 @ection was probably deposited close to 1945. The hydrocarbon disiri'bution
                 is in agreement with this observation.

                       26-28 cm  section
                       Based on  the absence of Benzotriazole B and    the high value of DEHP,
                 this'section was probably deposited between 1945.and 1963. The high
                 concentration of DEHP and the increased level of f2 hydrocarbons suggest
                 considerable industrial or defense related activities during this time.
                       One possible explanation of these trends would be the input of
                 dredged material containing organic       pollutants (phthalate and f    2   hydro-
                 carbons) deposited between 1945 and 1963, followed by 'cleaner, material
                 deposited close to 1945. These materials may have been deposited in the
                 early to m*id-60's or over a longer time period (e,g. 1950-60). They
                 have since been covered by recently accumulated s diment (1963 to present).

                 /d
                 Enc.

                                         Allen Harbor Sediment Analysis      a

                                                   Mid-cove core
                                                      (4/14/80)

                                                            0-2  cm       18-20 cm        26-28 cm

                                                                               (ng/g)
                 Naphthalene                                   __b            1.7              5.0
                 2-methyl naphthalene                                         1.5              2.4
                 1-methyl naphthalene.                                        0.6              1.5
                 Biphenyl                                                     0.6              1.7
                 C2 naphthalene                                               0.5              1.2
                 Fluorene                                      2.4            2.3             16.8
                 Dibenzothiophene                              6.5            2.2             12.3
                 Phenanthrene                                 18.7           12.4            115.1
                 Fluoranthene                                 43.8           43.5            183.8
                 Pyrene                                       28.9           45.6            132.9
                 B[alanthracene                                8.1            6.0             30.8
                 Chrysene 'a triphenylene                      8.6           12.5             37.3

                 Total identified aromatics (12)             117.0          129.4            540.8
                                                                               (ug/g)
                 Total f 1 hydrocarbons                       70.5           44.3             40.7
                 Total f 2 hydrocarbons                        4.7            2.6              9.4
                 Total f I + f 2 hydrocarbons                 75.2           46.9             50.1
                                                                               (ng/g)
                 Benzotriazole A  c                           51*.7
                                  d
                 Benzotriazole B                              72.2
                 Di-2-ethyl hexyl   phthalate                 114.0          36.4            1192.5

                        aAll concentrations on a dry wt. basis.
                        b<1 ng/g.
                        cBenzotriazole A- 2-(2'-Hydroxy-3',5-di-t-amylphenyl)-2H-benzotriazole.
                        dBenzotriazole B '= 2-(2'-Hydroxy-3',5'-di-butylphenyl)-5-chloro-
                          2H-benzotriazole.

                                              APPENDIX 2

              Analysis of Mya Arenaria collected from Allen Harbor on April 14,1980
              November 12, 1980
              J.G. Quinn and R.J. Pruell

                        Attached are the results of our analysis of clam samples from
                   Allen Harbor. Our interpretation of the data is as follows:

                         Aromatic Hydrocarbons: We have identified at least fourteen
                   specifTc -aromatic hydrocarbons in these samples. The most abundant
                   hydrocarbons were phenanthrene, fluoranthene and pyrene. These three
                   compounds are the major hydrocarbons found in sediments from Allen
                   Harbor and throughout Narragansett Bay, and probably originate from
                   the combustion of coal or petroleum products. Our values for fluoran-
                   thene (104-151 ng/g), and pyrene (44-69 ng/g) are in fair agreement
                   with those reported by the FDA for a sample of Mya collected from Allen
                   Harbor on 12/20/76 (fluoranthene: 75 ng/g, and pyrene: 48 n/g/).
                         Total fl (saturated) and f2 (unsaturated) Hydrocarbons: These
                   values for total hydrocarbo-ns(30-38 pg/g) are in general agreement with
                   values reported by the*CRr in 1977 (59 pg/g). The sample collected from
                   the mid-cove area shows slightly highe.r levels of total hydrocarbons
                   (and aromatic hydrocarbons) but lower levels of benzotriazoles. These
                   differences are probably not significant.

                   JGQ/d
                   Att.

                               Hydrocarbons and selected organic compounds in

                              softshell clams (M a arenaria) from Allen Harbor.
                                                  @2@4/14/KT
                                                            Mid-Cove        Near dump
                Aromatic Hydrocarbons

                    Naphthalene                                 --               --
                    2-methyl naphthalene                        3.9              3.2
                    1-methyl naphthalene                        1.9              1.1
                    Biphenyl                                    2.0              1.4
                    C2 naphthalene                              1.8              0.9
                    1,4 + 2,3 dimethyl naphthalene              3.2              1.6
                    Acenaphthalene                              7.6              4.5
                    2,3,5 trimethy1naphthalene                  7.6              2.7
                    Fluorene                                    8.4              4.6
                    Dibenzothiophene                            8.6              5.9
                    Phenanthrene                               68.2             44.3
                    Fluoranthene                               151.1            104.2
                    Pyrene                                     69.2             44.4
                    B[alanthracene                              4.2              4.7
                    Chrysene and triphenylene                   8.1              6.7
                    Total identified   aromatics               345.8            230.2
                    Benzotriazole Ac                           34.1             46.3
                    Benzotriazole B  d                          2.3              2.9
                                                                    (AII)b
                    Total f 1 hydrocarbons                     30.2             23.5
                    Total f 2 hydrocarbons                      7.7              6.7
                    Total f I + f2  hydrocarbons               37.9             30.2

                        aanalysis  done on an aliquot of homogenate produced using 15-20
                           clams.
                          All concentrations on a wet wt. basis.
                         cBenzotriazole A = 2-(2'-Hydroxy-3',5'-di-t-amylphenyl)-2H-
                           benzotriazole.
                         dSenzotriazole B  = 2-(2'-Hydroxy-3',5'-di-t-butylphenyl)-5-chloro-
                                                2H-benzotriazole.

                                             APPENDIX 3

              Analysis of surface sediment collected on June 24,1980 from the dredged
              basin off Davisville
              November 10, 1980
              J.G.Quinn, A.G.Requejo, and R.J.Pruell

                        Attached are the results of our analysis of this sample. Our
                  interpretation of the data is as follows:

                        Aromatic Hydrocarbons: We have identified at least twelve specific
                  aromatic hydrocarbons in    s sample. The high concentrations of
                  phenanthrene, fluoranthene and pyrene suggest a combustion source for
                  these hydrocarbons (e.g. burning of coal or petroleum products).

                        Benzotriazoles and Di-2-ethylhexylphthalate: These compounds
                  are somewhat higher than expected based on our previous analyses of
                  sediments from the West Passage of Narragansett Bay. The organic
                  carbon values are also slightly higher than expected. The data suggest
                  that some particulate organic material (containing benzotriazoles,
                  phthalate, and hydrocarbons) from the Providence River may be trans-
                  ported to the mid-bay area via tidal currents, and eventually settle
                  out and accumulate in the dredged basin off Davisville.
                        Total fl (saturated) and f2 (unsaturated) Hydrocarbons:
                  These 7a-lues-are about three times higher than expected based on our
                  previous analyses of sediments from the West Passage of Narragansett Bay.
                  The data suggest a second source (other than the Providence River) of
                  petroleum hydrocarbons in the vicinity of the Davisville area.

                        Our conclusions are:

                        1) The slightly elevated levels of benzotriazoles, phthalate
                  and organic carbon are probably due to transport, deposition and
                  accumulation of particulate organic material from the Providence River.

                        2) The high levels of three specific aromatic hydrocarbons and
                  total hydrocarbons suggest an additional source in the vicinity of the
                  Davisville area. This source includes polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
                  from the combustion of fossil fuels as well as a complex mixture of
                  hydrocarbons from petroleum products.
                        3) The concentration of aromatic hydrocarbons, total hydrocarbons,
                  benzotriazoles and phthalate is significantly higher in Davisville
                  surface sediment compared to Allen Harbor surface sediment (see enclosed
                  report of September 10, 1980).

                  JGQ/d
                  Enc.
                  cc:  S. Pratt

                                          Davisville Sediment AnalL@Llsa
                                                      Subsample 1        Subsamole 2
                 Aromatic hydrocarbons
                                                                           ng/g
                     naphthalene                           --b               33.0             33.0
                     2-methyl naphthalene                                    31.6             31.6
                     1-methyl naphthalene                                    22.9             22.9
                     biphenyl                                                20.3             20.3
                     C2 naphthalene                        --                12.3             12.3
                     fluorene                             500.5             367.5            434.0
                     dibenzothiophene                     222.2             173.8            198.0
                     phenanthrene                        1947.5            1482.4           1714.9
                     fluoranthene                        4862.0            4104.1           4483.0
                   @pyrene                                2541.2           2141.2           2341.2
                     B[alanthracene                       172.0             248.7            210.3
                     chrysene & triphenylene              270.2              --              270.2

                     Total f, hydrocarbons                929.4             818.9            874.1
                     Total f2 hydrocarbons                  68.5             51.5             60.0
                     Total fl + f 2 hydrocarbons          997.9             870.4            934.1

                                                                           ng/g
                     Benzotriazole A                      626.9             432.1            531.0
                     Benzotriazole B d                    190.7             145.3            168.0

                                                                           ]Ig/g
                     Di-2 ethylhexylphthalate               1.34              1.00             1.17
                     Cycloalkene M.W. 344                   3.97              3.33             3.65
                     Organic carbon                  24.0 � 0.5  mg/ge

                     aAll values reported on a dry   weight basis.
                     bnot analyzed.
                     CBenzotriazole A = 2-(2'-hydroxy-31,51-di-t-amylphenyl)-2H-benzotriazole.
                     dBenzotriazole 8 = 2-(2'-hydroxy-3',51-di-t-butylphenyl)-5-chloro-2H-
                                             benzotriazole.
                     etriplicate analysis.

                                                                                                      .1-i
                                                                                                      r

                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                      i
                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                      I
                                                                                                      f
                                                                              3 6668 14108 9898         z