Providence Harbor an agenda for action : a report

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

PROVIDENCE
HARBOR
An Agenda for
Action

A Report to the HARBOR
ESTUARY AND LAND.
PLANNING Advisory
Committee

Prepared for the Coastal Resources
TC nagement Council by the
225
P76 stal Resources Center URI-1982
P78
1982
c.2

A A 9 d for
A

1 1982
c.2

tj zM6
ary
js o6pst. Libr
6AA Coast'l Sbrvice,@I,.-
'N Ave.nlu-..'
USA, 0
5241
r
gc
at 4,
char

CRM%O

RHODE ISLAND COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEN/ENT COUNCIL

nh
NOW,

A Special Area Plan For Providence Harbor?
Rhode Island's commercial waterfronts continue to through coordinated public agency programs, private
make an important contribution to the state's econ- i.nvestments and broad-based public support. To this
omy. However, as economic conditions change, facili- end, the CRMC is proposingfour goalsfor Providence
ties become obsolete, begin to deteriorate, and are no Harbor:
longer easily re-used. When this deterioration occurs 0 balanced and compatible improvements in
on a large scale, as it has along the Providence Harbor shoreline use
shoreline during the past forty years, the situation
demands public attention and concern. 0 improved water quality
The Coastal Resources Management Council rec- 0 increased recreational opportunities and public
ognizes the need for a concerted effort to foster water access
front revitalization, and believes that it can play an 0 continued port industry development
Z*mportant role as a catalyst in this process.
A Special Area Plan for Providence Harbor could In the short term, the Council believes that progress
stimulate and guide the redevelopment of the old can be made simultaneously toward each goalw z 'thout
waterfront (northward from Sabin Point and Paw- significant conflicts. However, to avoid a collision
tuxet Neck in the Providence River, to the head of the among competing demands for waterfront land in the
RIEF G_
IN 3

Seekon k R iver in Paw tucket). A draft p Ian for cons id- decades a h ead, it is essen t ia I to p Ian n ow for t h e p hysi-
eration by the Council is currently being prepared by cal development of the Harbor, in a manner which
the Coastal Resources Center of the University of carefully balances public and private uses and creates
Rhode Island. Several other groups are already trying the best climate for the investments needed to meet
to achieve Harbor improvements. These efforts must each goal.
be recognized, encouraged and supported by a basic
commitment to the future of urban waterfront goals Continued on back page

Improved Water

The Providence River is the major source for pollutants from
the Providence metropolitan area into Upper Narragansett
Bay. Rivers, storm run-off, combined sewer overflows, sew-
age treatment plants, the river bottoms, and industrial facili-
ties supply excess nutrients, heavy metals, petroleum
hydrocarbons, bacteria and other pollutants to the waters of
Providence Harbor. Spurred by growing puhlic concern
since the early 1970s. federal, state and local attention has
been focused on reducing these discharges, The paccofactiv-
ity has increased greatly in recent years as planning and
design work for numerous improvements to the Providence
sewerage system, estimated to cost as much as $250 million,
have approached the final engineering and early construc-
. . . ......

Balanced and Compatible Shorcline Use East Providence

The shorelie of Providence Harbor continues to change as old Veterans
industrial and commercial facilities become obsolete and ate Memorail
replaced by new uses or fall into disrepair. Government has never highway
Owned so much of the same; theCity of Providence acquired
and developed India Point Paik in the early 1970s, and the Bristol
Secondary Track right-og-way has been recently taken over bythe
Rhode Island Department of Ttansportation. Many ideas for
waterfront redevelopment have been suggested in the past decade
by citizens, pu blic agencies, and the private sector. However, finan-
cial support for the best of these concepts cannot be expected to
come [Tom government or business, unless a strong case for their
need and viability ismade.The likelihood of success of individual
projects would be greatly enhanced if progress toward the overall
improvement of Pri ovidence Harbor be assured.

Recreational Opportunities and Access Providence River
The, Providence metropolitan area lacks outdoor recreation
opportunities. The largest open space resource- tidal watersand
tire shore of the Seekonk and Providence Rivers-is currently
inaccessible to the public.This is riot (lite to a shortage of publicly- Providence Cranston
owned land, but to the insufficient number of public rights-of-way
to the water, and the absence of atractive well-designed and main-
taind boating facilities, parks and fishing piers. Unfortunately,
tire presence of dilapidated picts and pilings, short front dumps
and debris front wrecked vessels is both an eyesore and a hazard in Port Industry Development
many areas of potential value. Poor water quality can affect the
desirability of waterfront recreational activities as well. In addi- In Providence Harbor, non-petroleum
tion both the state and municipalities -lack sufficient funds .for exports have increased substantially sin
making improvements to publicy owned property .Anexpression on both sides of the Harbor, including
of commerrcial recreation opportu nities, such as marinas and res- Providence and Worcester Railroad marine terminal, continue to
taurants, is limited in part by the present dim prospects for harbor Continued on back page
redevelopment.

2 -3-

Continued from p. 3 Continued from p. I

invest in port facilites and seek to increase the volume Conclusion
and varieties of cargoes handled. A key to the future
growth of many of the firms involved in the port In keeping with its legislative mandate to plan for the
industry is the success of the Municipal Wharf, owned future of Rhode Island's coastal areas, thesefour topics
and operated by the City of Providence. Since 1963, (p. 1) are presently the focus of a Special Area Plan.
$13.6 million in capital expenditures financed by As the problems become more clearly defined
municipal general obligation bonds has been spent to through the ongoing efforts of Coastal Resources
improve ship berths and build a new terminal building, Center, the Council w ill be exp loring goals for the area
and offices. However, numerous problems remain, with existing agencies and interested groups.
including finding a site and method for the disposal of
dredged materials, the acquisition of cranes for un-
loading containerized cargoes, the completion of berth
improvements and the demolition of an old terminal
building. Port revenues and net income have fluctuated BRIEFING is published by the Rhode Island Coastal Resour-
greatly since 1978, while expenses continue to rise. The ces Management Council which was created in 1971 by the
organizational structure and authorities of the General Assembly to maintain and regulate Rhode Island's
Municipal Wharf have been virtually unchanged since coastal resources. The Council is mandated by law to protect
the 1920s. A long-term port planning initiative is and preserve the state's shoreline and coastal waters and pub-
needed, which would increase the competitiveness and lishes this newsletter to keep Rhode Islanders informed of its
management program.
economic input of port operations, including consider- The CRMC maintains a Speakers' Bureau that is available
ation of improving marketing management, capital upon request to groups and organizations. A slide show is also
improvement programming and the supporting net- available. Requests for speakers should be addressed to Speak-
work of rail and highway service to both sides of ers' Bureau, Coastal Resources Management Council, 60 Davis
the river. Street, Providence, R.I. 02908.
Gayle Wood, Editor

The preparation of th is newsletter was financed in part by a planning grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, under the provisions of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-583), through the
Integrated Grant Administration program administered as part of Federal Regional Council grant FRC-IGA-01-07.

BULK RATE
U.S. Postage Paid
Providence, R.I. 02904
Permit No. 1286

Coastal Resources
Management Council
60 Davis Street
Providence, R. 1. 02908

REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUPS OF
THE HARBOR ESTUARY AND LAND PLANNING (HELP)
ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

of the Harbor Estuarv and Land Planning Advisory Committee
A Report

to the

Coastal Resources Management Council

April 1982

Prepared by the Coastal Resources Center
Craduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
Narragansett, RI

Donald Robadue, Jr., Project Coordinator

The preparation of this report was financed in part 'by a grant from
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the pro-
visions of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-
583).

REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUPS OF
THE HARBOR ESTUARY AND LAND PLANNING (HELP) ADVISORY COMMITTEE
TO THE COASTAL RESOURCES MAKAGEMENT COUNCIL
April 28, 1982

.THE HELP COMMITTEE CHARGE

The Harbor Estuary and Land Planning (HELP) Advisory Committee

was established in January 1982 to assist the Urban Waterfronts

Subcommittee of the Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC)

in its effort to develop a Special Area Management Plan for

Provid ence Harbor. The purpose of this proposed plan i s twofold.

First, the CRMC seeks to foster a concerted effort for water-

frontrevitalization. Secondly, the CRNC desires to assure a

careful balance of public and private uses in the area in order

to achieve the goals of increased recreati onal opportunities,

port development, compatible shoreline uses and improved water

qu ality,

The first assignment for the HELP Committee was to consider

three'major harbor problems: port development, debris removal

and shoreline redevelopment. Working groups were formed to ex-

amine options for solving each problem. The groups considered

both near term actions which could be taken by the CRMC and other

agencies as well as long term goals and policies -for inclusion

in the Special Area Management Plan.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The Port Industry

Maritime commerce is the dominant use of the Providence

River. portion of Providence Harbor. The port industry in the

Harbor continues to experience several difficulties as it searches

for an identity as one oF many small East Coast ports engaget.]

in coastal and international trade. Sixty percent of port

industry employment is involved in handling non-petroleum cargo,

which comprises only 18 percent of Harbor traffic. Much of this

non-petroleum cargo is shipped or received at the Municipal Wharf,

operated by the City of Providence. For many years, public

officials and port industry members have proposed that the Muni-

cipal Wharf be provided decision-making independence and adequate

financial resources in order to be more competlitive. 'rhe

Port Industry Working Group examined the problems facing the industry

and considered options for inttoducing an effective management

structure into the Harbor.

Two questions must be addressed by any proposal for insti-

tutional change: who will become responsible, and what will their

role be? Four options were considered by the Working Group as

potential locations for authority and responsibility:

1. City of Providence Port Department (slated to be created

in 1983 in the Home Rule Charter)

2. Rhode Island Port Authority (RIPA)

3. Independent state organization

4. Independent organization of municipalities

The favored option was the addition of Providence Harbor as orie of

the projects of the Rhode Island Port Authority, accompanied

by an expansion of the mandate of the Department of Economic

Development.,an d broader representation on RIPA by Harbor communities.

The Rhode Island Port Authority, in its enabling legislation, was

given the responsibility to: "foster and improve the handling

of waterborne commerce from and to any port of this state and

other states and foreign countries." (GL.RI 42-64-2(g)) RIPA

was provided with a broad range of powers to carry out its

mission and has several years.of experience in managing projects.

It appears to be in the best position to take tip responsibilities

in Providence Harbor.

The other options were found to have drawbacks which would

impede the success of a new management program. The City Port

Department, when established, will be an important step forward

in the consolidation of port functions. Many of the problems

which the industry faces could be addressed to some extent by

a Port Department with adequate financial resources. However,

the Department will have to compete directly with other City

agencies.for funds and will be subject to the same decision-making

procedure which has been the source of decades old concern. In
add!tion, the perspective of a Port Department will be dominated

by the Municipal Wharf, leaving the establishment of a Harbor

wide management approach waiting to be accomplished.

An indep-endent state authority Nvotild be desired if

RIPA cannot be encouraged to increase its involvement in Provi-

dence Harbor. However, it would be required to duplicate

many of RIPA's powers in order to be effective. It would not

have direct access to existing economic development tools and

resources and would lack a Bay-wide facility development per-

spective.

If no state init iative was forthcoming, the municipalities

around the Harbor could establish their own organizatio n or

authority. In addition to duplicating RIPA-powers, which may

not be possible in any case, the cities do not have access to

sufficient financial resources or expertise and may find it

difficult to act with the broader Harbor and Bay-wide perspective

which is clearly ne eded.

Five levels of port management were considered by the

Working Group:

1. Trade association/advisory committee

2. Targeted grants-in-aid

3. Grants-in-aid plus Narragan5ett Bay port study

4. Limited facility management arrangements

5. Full Harbor facility management

The favored level of involvement for the Rhode Island Port Auth-

ority was level 4, limited facility management, in which RIPA

would not only hold meetings, conduct studies and supply grants

but would establish arrangements--to-operate some or all oF the

berths at the Municipal Wharf. This Would assure that management

or marketing recommendations were implemented and would place the

burden of.fin. anoing facility improvements on the State, while

providing the City of Providence with annual payments sufficient

to offset the cost of previous improvements to the wharf.

Levels of invo lvement 1 through 3 can be viewed as a logical

progression of steps which RIPA could take as it pursues the

goal of limited facility managemen t, should that prove to be

necessary. It would be easy to implement Level 1, while new

appropriations from the General Assembly would be required to

undertake a program of grants-in-aid or a major port marketing

and management study.

Once a final HELP Advisory Committee recommendation is

developed, the next step will be to arrange meetings with a

broader group of individuals concerned with the port industry,

including the Governor's Office, state agencies, members of RIPA,

the municipalities, the General Assembly and port businesses.

The analysis and proposals developed by the HELP Committee will

provide a solid framework for serious discussion of a state port

policy which sets a clear course of action for improving Harbor

management.

Debris Removal

Approximately 27,000 cubic yards of debris clutter the

shoreline of Upper Narragansett Bay. Half of this total is

owned by 33 firms,individuals or public agencies in Providence

Harbor,,in the form of abandoned and deteriorating wharves, piers

and docks. It would cost more than $2 million to remove these

structures.according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. A

plan for debris removal proposed by the Corps of Engineers in

1978 called for a cost sharing project in which communities would

pay three fourths of an estimated $4.8million comprehensive

clean-up.(1981 dollars.)

The Coastal Resources Managemen t Council and the Department

of Environmental Management have the responsibility and authority

to seek the removal of shoreline debris caused by abandoned

structures and vessels. The Debris Removal Working Group con-

sidered options for proceeding with the implementation of this

state policy which would hav e the greatest chance of success.

The Working Group concluded that the State should support

the Corps of Engineers project which is still in preparation

but work separately to reduce the inventory of debris sources

through its own program of incentives to debris owners. In this

way, the future State and local share of the federal project,

should it ever be funded, would be reducod. In the meanti me,

a substantial clean-up of the shore would have taken place. Some

of the , incentives to be provided to debris owners include:

* a reduced rate for disposal at the sanitary landfill

operated by the Solid Waste Management Corporation

* onsite inspections and certification by DEM

* coordinated clean up plans in subareas of the Harbor

to acheive economies of scale in equipment mobilization

and transportation

* area committees to encourage participation and identify

economical removal practices
F
The Debris Removal Working Group recommended that the

debris removal project, which encompasses the full length of

the Seekonk a'nd Providence Riv ers be divided into subareas, shown

in Figure 1. The Seekonk River was recommended as the first

subarea for which a Debris Removal Task Force should be created.

It would be composed of debris owners, citizens, public officials-

and contractors. The Task Force would supervise the preparation

of a detailed plan for the clean up of the River, provide

encouragement to debris owners for participation in the state

program,organize volunteer clean up of loose onshore debris and

PAW E

PR VIDENCE

0 2mi.

EAST 2 3 km

ROVIDENCE

CRANSTO

WAR14ICK

RRIL\K',TON
)3

WARREN

U p p e r
N (3 r ro g a n s e t t
BRISTOL

Upper Narragansett Bay and Tidal Tributaries

Figure 1 Debris removal project areas.

serve as a model for future efforts in other subareas.

A letter and questionnaire informing the 33 major owners

about the state debris removal program, and requesting veri-

fication of the data gathered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

as updated by the Coastal Resources Center was mailed on

April 23, 1982. The next step will b e to implement the Debris

Removal Working Group recommendations by convening the Seekonk

River Task Force and developing a detailed removal plan for that

area.

Shoreline Use

Th e assignment of the Shoreline Use.Worki ng Group was the

broadest in scope. Discussion began with an assessment of the

potential of increasing the commercial, recreational and resi-

dential value of Providence Harbor to the metropolitan area.

Concensus, was easily reached on the point that the region is

indeed suitable for much more of those uses, and that the

positive attributes of the Harbor are not generally recognized

by the public. There was also agreement that the Harbor is

plagued by a number of problems, including the visual impact of

debris and polluted water, flood hazards and construction prob-

lems, the lack of a mechanism for overcoming obstacles to re-

development, and the absence of a linkage among the various

site development and access plans which have been proposed in

recent years.

The Working Group then set out to define the appropriate

role of the coastal resources management program in fostening

.the improved utilization of waterfront land, given the fact that

municipal governments have the primary responsibility for

guiding the physical development.of their communities. The

answer to this.question will determine the shape of the

special area plan. It was observed that there has been no

shortage of ideas and plans for various stretches of the Harbor

shore, as Figure 2 illustrates. Many areas have been the subject

of planning 5tu dies by state or municipal agencies, as well as

the private sectore. Unfortunately, few of these ideas have

reached the public eye, much less the stage of implementation.

Un til'now, there has been no opportunity to examine the effect

of these proposals on the overall development of the Harbor,

or discuss ways in which a plan to redevelop Providence Harbor

as a whole could assist the best ideas to obtain the public and

private support they need.

The approach recommended to the Coastal Resources Management

Council by the Working Group emphasizes the n eed for increasing

public. awareness of the need for a Harbor redevelopment effort,

and the need as well for a continuing mechanism through which

ideas and proposals can be spotlighted to provide recognition

and coordinated to insure compatibility. This task is seen as

one of-the major continuing activities of a permanent

Harbor Estuary and Land Planning Advisory Committee to CRMC

which could then.lead to a meaningful special area plan. The

possible futures for Providenc-- Harbor must be explored directly

with the municipalities of Pawtucket, Providence, East Providence,

D,
ce 4
a,
y O@j aell
Et
1, 0 n k R v e F
See
14
III tb@ &.-4-
Bull,: wk,
7@ SWAN POINT MoSPItAL
C---Y 40%
CEMETARV

y
Im, @V-j 1- 00,
do

F...t 4
@Z 1-
J fj-,
MAI;_ 10
PLANS ;or MOVIDENCE MROOR 4
rXISTING LAND USE (AbANDOWto FAcIL")
I e
lk@
x..
LM V Oj ,,ce

Cranston and Warwick in a format which expands the scope and par-

ticipation in the discussions. The first step in this effort

will be to invite each of the municipalities to present their

program for waterfront redevelopment to the HELP AdV15ory

Committee and the CRMC.as a means of demonstrating to

each community the statewide interest in their problems and

plans, as well as learning first hand the intentions and

aspirations of each city for its waterfront.

ar or
& a

June 1982 Number 1

A NEWSLETTER ABOUT RHODE
ISLAND'S LARGEST URBAN WATER- Important activities are now taking
FRONT place to overcome decades of neglect
and disinterest in the waterfront.
The objective of this newsletter is to New port operations have been
provide a forum for the exchange of initiated and new facilities are
information, ideas and concerns being built. The Narragansett Bay
relating to.the problem which exist Commission has taken over operation
along the coast and waters of of the Providence sewage system and
Providence Harbor and Upper plans both operational and1acility
Narragansett Bay. improvements. Several scientific
studies promise to improve our
The Seekonk and Providence Rivers understanding of water pollution
(Providence Harbor) and the Upper problem . A cooperative debris
Narragansett Bay are a complex and removal program has been organized
heavily utilized portion of the by the Department of Environmental
Narragansett Bay estuary. The region Management and the Coastal Resources
is surrounded by the Providence Management Council. The Harbor
metropolitan area, and nearly one 2 Estuary and Land Planning (HELP)
million people inhabit its 2160 km Advisory Committee to the CRMC has
watershed. The shore and waters completed its first report as part
of this urbanized estuary are of the Coastal Program's effort to
afflicted by many of the ills of develop a Special Area Management
urban waterfronts elsewhere in the Plan for Providence Harbor.
nation: pollution, deteriorated
buildings and port facilities, In this and subsequent issues of
underutilized industrial sites, the HARBOR & BAY newsletter, we will
lack of access to the water, and focus on these and other efforts to
shoreline debris. The public solve the'pro-b-lem- of Providence
response to these problems has been Harbor and Upper Narragansett Bay,
hampered by a* general lack of and tap its potential as a valuable
understanding of opportunities and coastal resource.
potential for revitalization.
b
B Y

A Newsletter of Providence Harbor and the
Upper Nar-raganseff Bay

PA11T*T.
ter-\

PR VIDENCE

EAST 0 1 2 3 km

,PROVIDENCE

CRANSTON

'WARWICK

BARRINGTON

WARREN

U p p e r
No rrag an sett BRISTOL
B a y

Upper Narragansett Bay and Tidal Tributaries

-3-

We hope that all of those who are inter- Providence. Projections by the
ested in solving urban waterfront Coastal Resources Center at the Uni-
problems will utilize this newsletter versity of Rhode Island indicate
to keep their colleagues up to date by that in fiscal year 1982, total
submitting to us reports on their expenses including repayment of bonds
activities, ideas and insights. and notes for recent port improvements
will be $2.2 'million, while port
revenues are expected to be about
HARBOR ESTUARY AND LAND PLANNING $700,000. Unless port revenues
(HELP) ADVISORY COMMITTEE ISSUES increase dramatically in the next
FIRST RECOMMENDATIONS TO COASTAL five years, this imbalance is ex-
-RESOURCES MANAGEMENT COUNCIL pected to continue.

The HELP Committee, composed of 22 For many years, public officials and
members representing a wide range of port industry members have proposed
individuals concerned with the metro- that the Municipal Wharf be provided
politan area's urban waterfront, have decision-making independence and
met frequently since January 1982 to adequate financial resources in order
provide the Coastal Resources Management to be more competitive, increase
Council (CRMC) Subcommittee on Urban cargo flo*w's and be self supporting.
Waterfronts and Dredging with advice on The Port Industry Working Group of
three critical Providence Harbor issues. the HELP Committee considered four
Working groups on the port industry, options for the locations of
debris removal, and shoreline use met authority and responsibility:
monthly to consider near-term actions
and long@-range goals.and policies for 1. City of Providence Port Depart-
inclusion in the Special Area Management ment (to be created in 1983 when
Plan for Providence Harbor currently a home rule charter is implemented)
being prepared by CRMC. At its April
28, 1982 meeting, the newly established 2. Rhode Island Port Authority
Harbor Estuary and Land Planning Advis-
ory Committee submitted its initial 3. Independent state organization
recommendations on actions needed to
improve the prospects for revitalizing 4. Independent organization of muni-
the Providence Harbor waterfront. These cipalities
findings are summarized below.
In addition, the Working Group
The Fort Industry examined five levels of involvement
by a new management agency in Prov-
Maritime commerce dominates the Provi- idence Harbor:
dence River portion of Providence
Harbor. The industry in the harbor a. Trade association/advisory
continues to experience as it searches committee
for an identity as one of many small b. Targeted grants-in-aid to
East Coast ports engaged in coastal and solve specific problems
international trade. Sixty (60) percent c. Grants-in-aid plus a Narra-
of all port industry employment in the gansett Bay port study
Harbor is involved in handling non- d. Limited facility management
petroleum cargo, which comprises only 18 arrangements
percent of Harbor traffic. Most of this e. Full harbor facility management
cargo is shipped or received at the by central agency
Municipal Wharf operated by the city of

-4-

The Working Group favored the involve- of incentives and enforcement of
ment of the Rhode Island Port Authority, existing regulations. Incentives to
whose present legislative mandate in- be provided to debris owners include:
cludes the responsibility to "foster
and improve the handling of waterborne 1@ Reduced rate for disposal at the
commerce from and to any port of this sanitary landfill operated by the
state and other states and foreign Solid Waste Management Corporation
countries". The Working Group felt
that limited facility management by an 2. Onsite inspections and certifica-
independent agency would be required tion by DEM and CRMC
to implement improvement management and
marketing efforts. 3. Coordinated clean-up plans in
sub-areas of the harbor to achieve
It urged that efforts begin at once to economies of scale in equipment
initiate serious discussion of improv- mobilization and transportation
ing port management in Providence
Harbor. 4. Area committees to encourage par-
ticipation and identify economical
Debris Removal removal practices

About 27,000 cubic yards of shoreline The Seekonk River was identified by the
debris litter the shoreline of Provi- Working Group as a good candidate to
dence Harbor and Upper Narragansett establish the first Debris Removal
Bay. Half of this total in the form Task Force.
of abandoned and deteriorating wharves,
@iers and docks is owned by 33 firms, Shoreline Use
individuals or public agencies. Shore-
line debris poses a constant hazard to Improving the quality of shoreline de-
navigation, detracts from the visual velopment in Providence Harbor, after
quality of the shore and water, and many decades of deterioration and
restricts commercial and recreational decline, is a major challenge which
use of the waterfront. faces the communities surrounding the
Seekonk and Providence Rivers and
The Coastal Resources Management Council Upper Narrragansett Bay. Cities
and the Department of Environmental across the nation are rediscovering
Management have the responsibility a *nd the untapped economic and public
authority to seek the removal of shore- values which are hidden under obsolete
line debris caused by abandoned shorefront facilities and unproductive
structures and vessels. The Debris waterfront property. The Shoreline
Removal Working Group considered options Use Working Group quickly concluded
for proceeding with the implementation that the Providence Harbor area is
of this authority. The Army Corps of indeed suitable for a wide range of
Engineers has estimated that removal of private and public uses than presently
shorefront structures alone would cost exist. There was also agreement that
more than $2 million. some areas are plagued by problems
including the visual impact of debris
The Working Group concluded that the polluted water and flood hazards. The
state should support an Army Corps of lack of a mechanism for overcoming
Engineers' project still underway, which obstacles to redevelopment and the
would enable a clean up of loose debris absence of a linkage among the various
and wrecked vessels but also begin site development and access plans
immediately to reduce the huge inven- which have been proposed in recent
tory of debris through its own program years are major impediments to a

-5-

successful harbor wide redevelopment on the condition of shorefront
effort. structures and informing them of the
state program. More than half of
The Working Group noted that there have the owners have already responded
been numerous planning studies and which will lead to site visits and
waterfront proposals in recent years) determinations of clean-up needs.
but that few of these concepts ever
reach the public's attention an6 * there Finally, a meeting has been held
has been no opportunity to examine the with planners from the municipali-
effect of these proposals collectively ties surrounding the Providence
on the harbor. No discussions have Harbor and Upper Narragansett Bay
taken place regarding ways in which a to prepare for their forthcoming
plan to redevelop Providence Harbor as presentations of community water-
a whole could assist individual devel- front goals and plans to the HELP
opment proposals to obtain the public Advisory Committee.
and private support they require.

The Working Group recommended that the CORRESPONDENCE SOUGHT ON HARBOR
HELP Advisory Committee begin the. AND BAY EVENTS AND INFORMATION
process of increasing public awareness
for the need'@for a harbor redevelopment Contributions are being solicited
effort, and provide a continuing me s from all readers on topics which
through which ideas and proposals can involve the harbor and bay. Infor-
be spotlighted, discussed and coordi- mation is needed on the plans for
nated. It also recommended that each and results of scientific, social
community around the harbor be asked an d economic research. Descriptions
to present its vision of waterfront of decisions, actions and issues in
development along its shore, since Harbor and Bay communities which
municipalities have the primary respon- pertain to the shoreline and water
sibility for controlling and stimulat- are also sought. Although the
ing land development. editorial emphasis will be placed
upon the factual presentations of
CRMC Urban Waterfronts Subcommittee infomation, brief signed statements
Response of opinion on relevant topics will
also be printed with an opportunity
The recommendations for near-term provided for the expression of con-
actions submitted by the HELP Advisory tras ting viewpoints.
Committee are being implemented. A
paper entitled "Organizational Remedies Send all correspondence to:
to Port Industry Problems in Providence
Harbor" which summarizes the Port Indus- Donald Robadue, Jr.
try Working Group recommendations has Coastal Resources Center
been distributed to key state and local Graduate School of Oceanography
public officials in preparation for a Narragansett RI 02882
meeting an the subject of improved.port
planning and management in Providence or call: (401) 792-6224.
Harbor.

The Department of Environmental Manage- TO RECEIVE THE HARBOR & BAY
ment and the Coastal Resources
NEWSLETTER, SIMPLY CALL OR WRITE
Management Council have mailed a. TO THE COASTAL RESOURCES CENTER
questionnaire to the 33 major debris
owners requesting verification of.data

HARBOR & BAY is a publication of the Coastal Resources
Center, Graduate School of*Oceanography, University of
Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI 02882.

Editor: Donald Robadue, Jr.

The preparation of this newsletter is financed by the Rhode Island
Coastal Resources Management Council through a grant from the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the provision of the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-583). Additional
funds are provided by the Sea Grant Program.

COASTAL RESOURCES CENTER
University of Rhode Island
Narragansett.Bay Campus
Narragansett RI 02882

ar or
a y

July 1982 Number 2

FIELD SAMPLING AND SCIENTIFIC STUDIES PLANNED FOR THE SUMMER OF
1982 IN THE HARBOR AND BAY

This summer, Upper Narragansett Bay River from the Upper Bay. In the
and the Providence River will be the second year of the project they will
focus of several new and ongoing re- examine the oxygen dynamics in the
search efforts to define the sources Providence River itself, including
of pollution problems and investigate phytoplankton productivity, flux
the implications for the health of from the bottom and.air-sea inter-
the estuary. Many of these studies change.
will have applications in urbanized
and polluted estuaries nationwide. Petroleum hyd ocarbons

Oxygen As part of a study of hydrocarbons
and other pollutants in urban runoff
Dr. Scott Nixon of URI's Graduate and CSOs with funding from NOAA's
School of Oceanography is embarking Office of Marine Pollution Assess-
on a two-year study of the low oxygen ment, Dr. Eva Hoffman, a chemist at
conditions in the Seekonk and Provi- the University of Rhode Island, will
dence Rivers. During the first year, be out sampling the Providence River
the Sea Grant-sponsored project will before, during and after rainstorms
examine the relative importance of this summer. She is hoping to deter-
sources of biological oxygen demand mine in better detail the effect of
(BOD). Oxygen, BOD loadings, ammonia storms on water quality. In addition
and nitrate will be measured biweekly to measuring hydrocarbons, her team
in each of the three major rivers: from the Graduate School of Ocean-
Blackstone, Woonsqu6tucket/Moshassuck, ography will analyze for lead and
and Pawtuxet and at the three major copper. Since lead results primarily
sewage treatment plants: Field's from runoff and the major source of
Point, Bucklin Point and East Provi- copper is the Field's Point Plant,
dence. In addition the research ratios of the metals will help
team will sample a major combined determine the source of the hydrocar-
sewer overflow (CSO) and estimate bons. Sampling the Field's Point
BOD loadings entering the Providence Plant will continue in order to
H b
& B

A Newsletter of Providence Harbor and the
Upper Narragansett Bay

-2-

complete her series comparing the experiments in large tanks which they
effectiveness of hydrocarbon removal plan to test in the Providence River
during wet and dry conditions, summer this summer. PH (the degree of
and winter. acidity or alkalinity) has fluctuated
more in tanks with high levels of
Mussels nutrient addition than in those with
lower nutrients. MERL will sample
Cages of mussels will be placed in the pH at dawn and dusk.
tipper and lower Bay next month by divers
from the Environmental Protection Agency's Bacteriological Analyses
Marine Research Laboratory in Narragansett
under the direction of Dr. Donald Phelps. The Rhode Island Department of Envi-
They will be retrieving some of the ronmental Management's Division of
mussels each month and analyzing for Water Resources will be continuing
levels of heavy metals and some organic its once weekly monitoring of
chemicals in the tissue. They will also bacterial levels in the Upper Bay.
be sampling natural mussel populations Water samples are analyzed for
from Ohio Ledge (off the north end of coliform bacteria which are used
Prudence Island) and Beavertail (James- as an indicator for the presence of
town) and determining a growth index pathogens. Each week the Upper Bay
called "Scope for Growth." This and another selected area, such as
index reflects the growth potential of Greenwich Bay, the West Middle Bay,
the mussels. Previous work has indicated East Middle Bay or the Barrington
when mussels were transplanted from the River are surveyed. In addition,
lower Bay to Conimicut Point their scope DEM conducts routine monitoring of
for growth decreased by 75 percent. bacterial levels at bathing beaches.
Petroleum hydrocarbons in mussels
increase 10 x from the EPA laboratory River Sampling
to Sabin Point. Heavy metals increase
3-5 x and PCBs 4 x. Water quality in the Ten Mile River
and the Moshassuck River (two of
Combined Sewer Overflows the rivers which drain into the
Upper Bay) will be surveyed this
E.C. Jordan of Portland, Maine has been summer by the Division of Water
hired by EPA to conduct a nationwide Resources in DEM. Twenty-four
CSO sampling study. In addition to hour monitoring will determine the
Providence, overflows will be studied diurnal variation in concentrations
in St. Louis, St. Paul and Seattle. of nutrients, metals, oxygen and
The purpose of the study is to determine biological oxygen demand at several
the concentration of 129 "Priority Pollu- sampling stations along each river.
tants.'' Samples will be taken at Ernest
and Allen Streets and Dexter and Hunting- Narragansett Bay National Estuarine
ton in CSO area #002. The company has Sanctuary
already completed a 24-hour background
study during dry weather and they plan The National Estuarine Sanctuary,
to measure three storms at each sampling part of the Bay Islands Park System,is
site. managed by the Department of Environ-
mental Management. As the Sanctuary
pH enters its second year of operation,
efforts are beginning to develop the
URI's Marine Ecosystem Research Laboratory research potential of the area.
(MERL) has developed predictions from Divers will conduct a survey of the

-3-

marine habitat in the sanctuary, which every weekend in Potter Cove. A
extends to the 18 foot depth north of comparison with DEM's mid-week
Prudence, Patience and Hope Islands sampling will be used to assess the
and an informational booklet describing effects of weekend boating on coli-
research opportunities in the area will form levels. Samples will also be
be prepared. taken immediately to the south of
the conditional shellfish area for
Water quality testing for coliform comparison with bacteria] levels
concentrations will be conducted within the conditional area.

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON PROVIDENCE HARBOR AND UPPER NARRAGANSETT BAY

Several reports have been prepared for the Coastal Resources Management Council
and its Harbor Estuary and Land Planning Advisory Committee by the Coastal
Resources Center at the University of Rhode Island. Copies of these reports
are supplied at no charge.
Send requests to: Coastal Resources Center
Graduate School of Oceanography
Narragansett RI 02882
UPPER NARRAGANSETT BAY: AN URBAN ESTUARY IN TRANSITION. 1980. D. Robadue and
V. Lee. Coastal Resources Center. 137 Pp. Introduces the probl,ems of the
Providence metropolitan area's waterfront.

RHODE ISLAND DREDGING NEEDS SURVEY, 1980-1985. 1981. Coastal Resources Center.
40 pp. Identifies the need for maintenance and development dredging at 200
marine facilities in Rhode Island.

THE PORT INDUSTRY IN PROVIDENCE HARBOR. 1982. D. Robadue, R. McKillop, D. Molzan.
Coastal Resources Center. 60 pp. Survey of the port industry, including
economic impact, cargo trends, and financial condition of the Municipal
Wharf.

A SPECIAL AREA PLAN FOR PROVIDENCE HARBOR. Briefing ... 32. 1982. Rhode Island
Coastal Resources Management Council. V pp.-An introduction to the
special Providence Harbor planning project.

REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUPS OF THE HARBOR ESTUARY AND LAND PLANNING ADVISORY
COMMITTEE TO THE COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT COUNCIL. April 28, 1982.
11 pp. Summary of recommendations of the HELP Advisory Committee.

ORGANIZATIONAL REMEDIES TO PORT INDUSTRY PROBLEMS IN PROVIDENCE HARBOR. April,
1982. 10 pp. The Port Industry Working Group paper on options for.
improving port planning and management.

REVIEW OF THE CITY OF PROVIDENCE INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
PRETREATMENT LIMITATIONS STUDY. Prepared by Charles Krasnoff Associates.
March, 1982. E. Deason, D.-Robadue, Coastal Resources Center. 16 pp.
Summarizes and critiques the proposed industrial pretreatment effluent
guidelines for the state's largest sewage system.

PLANNING FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS IN UPPER NARRAGANSETT BAY AND ITS
TRIBUTARIES: SHELLFISHING. May 1982. E. Deason. Draft Report.
Coastal Resources Center. 27 pp. Discusses the effects of pollution
on the Upper Bay quahog resource, including both limitations on
harvesting and quality of habitat, and explores the implications for
pollution abatement strategies.

HARBOR & BAY is a publication of the Coastal Resources
Center, Graduate School of Oceanography, University of
Rhode Island, Narragansett RI 02882.

Written by: Ellen Deason
Editor: Donald Robadue, Jr.

COASTAL RESOURCES-CENTER
University of Rhode'Island
Narragansett Bay Campus
Narragansett RI 02882

Orga.nizational Remedies
for Port Industry Problems
in Providence Harbor

A Report of the HARBOR ESTUARY
AND LAND PLANNING Advisory
Committee to the Coastal Resources
Management Council

MAY 1982

ORGANIZATIONAL REMEDIES FOR PORT
INDUSTRY PROBLEMS IN PROVIDENCE HARBOR

A Report of the Harbor Estuary and Land Planning Advisory Committee

to the

Coastal Resources Management Council

May 1982

i-7
Prepared by the Coastal Resources Center
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
Narragansett, R.I.

Donald Robadue, Jr., Project Coordinator

The preparation of this report was financed in part by a grant from
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the pro-
visions of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-
583)

ORGANIZATIONAL REMEDIES FOR PORT INDUSTRY PROBLEMS IN
PROVIDENCE HARBOR

SUMMARY

.The HELP Committee Charge

The Harbor Estuary and Land Planning (HELP) Advisory Committee was established
in January 1982 to assist the Urban Waterfronts Subcommittee of the Coastal
Resources Management Council (CRMC) in its effort to develop a Special Area
Management Plan for Providence Harbor. The purpose of this proposed plan is
twofold. First, the CRMC seeks to foster a concerted effort for waterfront
revitalization. Secondly, the CRMC desires to assure a careful balance of
public and private uses in the area in order to achieve the goals of increased
recreational opportunities, port development, compatible shoreline uses and
improved water quality. The first assignment for the HELP Committee was to
consider three major harbor problems: port development, debris removal and
shoreline redevelopment. Working groups were formed to examine options for
solving each probliem. The groups considered both near term actions which
could be taken by the CRMC and other agencies as well as long term goals and
policies for inclusion in the Special Area Management Plan.

The Port Industry Working Group

Maritime commerce is the dominant use of the Providence River portion of
Providence Harbor. The port industry in the Harbor continues to experience
several difficulties as it searches for an identity as one ofmany small
East Coast ports engaged in coastal and international trade. Sixty percent
of port industry employment is involved in handling non-petroleum cargo,
which comprises only 18 percent of Harbor traffic. Much of this non-petroleum
cargo is shipped or received at the Municipal Wharf, operated by the City of
Providence, hence public action or inaction will play a critical role-in
determining the industry's future.

For many years, public officials and port industry members have proposed that
the Municipal Wharf.be provided decision-making independence and adequate
financial resources in order to be more competitive. The Fort Industry Working
Group, composed of industry representatives and public officials, examined
the problems facing the industry and considered options for introducing an
effective management structure into the Harbor.

Recommendations

Two
questions must be addressed by any proposal for institutional change:
who will become responsible, and what will their role be? Four options were
considered by the Working Group as potential locations for authority and
responsibility:

A.. City of Providence Port Department (slated to be created in.1983
in the Home Rule Charter)
B. Rhode Island Port Authority (RIPA)
C. Independent state organization
D. Independent organization of municipalities

Five levels of port management were also considered by the Working Group:

1. Trade association/advisory committee
2. Targeted grants-in-aid
3. Grants-in-aid plus Narraganse tt Bay port study
4. Limited facility management arrangements
5. Full Harbor facility management

The favored locus of responsibility for harbor management was the addition of
Providence Harbor as one of the projects of the Rhode Island Port Authority,
accompanied by an expansion of the mandate of the Department of Economic
Development and broader representation of RIPA by Harbor communities (Option
B). The Rhode Island Fort Authority, in its enabling legislation, was given
the responsibility to: "fosterand improve.the handling of waterborne commerce
from and to any port of the state and other states and foreign countries."
(GLRI 42-64-2(g)) RIPA was provided with a broad range of powers to carry out
its mission and has several years of experience in managing projects. It
appears to be in the best position to take up responsibilities in Providence
Harbor.

The favored role for the Rhode Island Port Authority was level 4, limited
facility management, in which RIPA would not only hold meetings, conduct
studies and supply grants but would establish arrangements to operate some
or all of the berths at the Municipal Wharf. This would assure that management
or marketing.recommendations were implemented and would place the burden of
financing facility improvements on the State, while providing the City of
Providence with annual payments sufficient to offset the cost of previous
improvements to the wharf.

Levels of involvement 1 through 3 can be viewed as a logical progression of
steps which.@RIFA could take as it pursues the goal of limited facility manage-
ment. It would be easy to implement Level 1, while new appropriations from
the General'Assembly would be required to undertake a program of grants-in-aid
or a major:port marketing and management study.

INTRODUCT10N

There are major problem facing the port industry in Providence Harbor which
inhibit its ability to provide service to existing users of marine terminals,
and make it inadequately prepared to take advantage of opportunities and cope
with the uncertainties facing commercial shipping in the next two decades.
About 60 percent of the 850 people directly employed in the industry depend
on the 18 percent of existing harbor traffic which is aon--petroleum cargo. The
Municipal Wharf owned by the City of Providence is the principal facility
which handles steel, lumber, automobiles, scrap metal, containers and other
important non-petroleum commodities. Public control of this key facility has

been frequently cited as a primary reason for the inability of the industry
to build proper facilities and capture new business. For many years, the port
industry as well as some public officials have urged that a new organizational
structure be introduced to Providence Harbor to provide better decision making,
planning and management of commercial shipping facilities.

The purpose of this report is to identify the major problems affecting the
port industry, define the basic reorganization options available to the state
and city, and assess their advantages and disadvantages. The difficulty of
implementing each option is also considered.

THE MAJOR PORT INDUSTRY PROBLEMS

Ten problems affect the ability of the port industry in Providence Harbor to
successfully deal with the challenges of coastal and international shipping.

1. The role of the port industry in Providence Harbor must be decided in the
context of other much larger east coast and Canadian ports for the period 1982-
2000. Which commodities will be handled, what facilities are needed, and how
must port business be conducted in order for the port to become competitive?
What is the relationship between the Municipal Wharf, the P&W facility in East
Providence, and marine facilities in Narragansett Bay owned by the Rhode Island
Port Authority?

2. Performance assessments are needed for the Municipal Wharf. The productivity
of berths, the degree of user satisfaction, the best utilization of terminal
buildings, and methods to enhance revenue generation are important pieces of
information about the terminal operations which are presently not available.

3. A better method of establishing prices is needed at the Municipal Wharf
which includes the recovery of,capital costs, andconsiders the impact of
the rate change on revenues. A recent change in dockage charges was actually
a price reduction.for most vessels, although presented to the public as a
means of increasing revenue.

4. Capital investment decisions in the port need to be accompanied by careful
revenue projections and benefit analyses. Many east coast ports are witnessing
massive investments in port facilities which often involve public funds. In
some cases, these ventures are highly speculative in nature, rather than
responses to well.documented demands for new terminal capacity.

5. Marketing,of port services needs to be greatly improved. This does not
mean simply better public relations, but undertaking careful assessments of
markets and clients to define the size of the total market, the fit between
port,facilities and market needs, forecasting shipping trends and technology,
and fostering trade development.

6. 'Improvements to po t operations are required, including dredging, rail
service, quay maintenance and container cranes.

7. Area planning is required for the City owned Fields Point land, which
surrounds the Municipal Wharf, as well as Providence Harbor and Narragansett
Bay port facilities, to insure that most efficient and effective use is made
of scarce waterfront land adjacent,to marine terminals.

8. Supporting services and infrastructure need to be upgraded, including state
transportation planning for intermodal freight handling, highway access to
port facilities, maintenance, security and fire protection. A voice for port
interests is required on matters of federal policy which could enhance or hurt
the industry locally.

9. Financing of facility improvements at the Municipal Wharf has not been
difficult until recently. About $14 million has been spent in the past decade
on various construction and maintenance projects. However, with revenues unable
to match total costs., and the financial condition of Providence leaving it
with only a Baa bond rating, new expenditures are likely to be more difficult
to make. Other port facility projects also will require additional capital
which may not be available given high interest rates, and the present slump
in international shipping. The Municipal Wharf will require an operating
subsidy from Providence for the next several years, until revenues can increase
again through marketing and service improvements which will lead to increased
traffic.

10. The decision making structure of the Municipal Wharf is characterized by
uncertainty and awkwardness. The Port Director is hampered by the absence of
sufficient power tocreatea neatly arranged self sufficient organization.
Decision-making delays and cumbersome restrictions are frequent complaints
about the activity of doing business with the Municipal Wharf. In addition,
there is presently no organization with the charge of looking out for port
industry interests in the Harbor as a whole.

ORGANIZATIONAL REMEDIES

The concensus among members of the Port Industry Working Group of the Harbor
Estuary and Land Planning Advisory Committee favors the implementation of
organizational changes toachieve improvements in these ten problem area.
There are many possible changes, both in the location of responsibility for
the Harbor (including the degree to which control of the Municipal Wharf would
'pass from the city to a state or private body), as well as the scope of con-
cern about the industry and the dep.th of involvement in implementing solutions.
As the nature of the proposed reorganization approaches that of a unitary,
comprehensive port authority for Narragansett Bay, the dtfficulties and
expense of implementation increase. The benefits of a dramatic change must
be weighed against the costs, as well as the likelihood of success of other
less ambitious choices.

A. Port Department

The home rule charter for Providence, scheduled for implementation in 1983,
already contains a provision for establishing a port department in the city
administration. Administration and budgeting for the Municipal Wharf would be
consolidated, and the Port Department would have to compete for funds directly
with other departments, rather than as part of the larger budget of the
Department of Public Works. Billing procedures may be somewhat streamlined,
but the port department would be required to negotiate for supporting services
from the DPW and other city agencies (see Figure 1).

General

Assembly

City Council

L. Mayor- -Office of
Economic
Development

Finance Planning
and Urbar Public Port
Develop- Works
ment

OPTION A
Port Department within existing City of Providence executive branch,
as described in the Home Rule Charter to take effect in 1983.

Some progress could be made toward solving many of the ten port problems
with the existing network which is responsible for the Municipal Wharf and
environs. Much needed discussion of the role of Providence Harbor's p*ort
industry over the next twenty years could begin no w with serious debate about
the future of the Municipal Wharf. Performance analysis, improved pricing
strategy and better capital investment decisions making procedures could be
started now, either with the remobilization of existing personnel or some
increase in skilled staff. Improvements could also be made now in marketing,
port operations and area planning for Fields Point:,.although this too will
require, additional staff work. The port department could also take a leader-
ship role in seeking improved supporting services, at least from the perspec-
tive of the Municipal Wharf. However, financing of port improvements is
likely to be problematic, and to the extent that the port industry troubles are
due to poor decision making arrangements, the port department will contribute
little to their solution.

Since the port.department is already included in the home rule charter, no
additional action is needed to implement this option. Adequate financing of
operations and physical improvements will still be required.

B.. Rhode Island Port Authority Operation and Management of Providence Harbor

The Rhode Island Port Authority and Economic Development Corporation RIPA was
created by the General Assembly in 1974 as an independent corporation with
broad responsibilities and powers for tasking economic development through
the acquisition, development and management of land for industrial and commer-
cial purposes, It presently owns and manages industrial and marine facilities
at Quonset/Davisville,.Melville and Coddington Cove, all former Navy facili--
ties.

The legislative findings for RIPA include a broad concern for port development
throughout the state:

(g) It is further found and declared to be the public
policy of the state to encourage the expansion and develop-
ment of the state's harbors and ports; to foster-and improve
the handling of waterborne commerce from and to any port of
this state and other states and foreign countries; to seek
to effect consolidation of the ports of this state and to
promote a spirit of cooperation among these ports in the
interest of the state as a whole; to initiate and further
plan for the development of the ports of this state and to
keep informed as to the present and future requirements and
needs of the ports of this state; (GLRI 42-64-2)

There are five approaches which RIPA could take to begin fulfilling this
legislative declaration, ranging from sponsoring regular meetings with the
port industry on specific harbor management topics, to a.total acquisition
and operation program for all port facilities. These options are presented
below, in the order of increasing complexity and RIPA control. They may be
viewed in two ways: as distinct goals for RIPA involvement in Providence

Harbor, or as a logical series of steps which gradually introduces RIPA to
new responsibilities in the Harbor, possibly.culminating in complete control
if that is deemed necessary.

1. Trade Association/Advisory Committee: The Rhode Island Port
Authority can and frequently does establish project advisory committees which
are composed of a broad range of economic and community interest representa-
tives. For planning and development studies at Quonset/Davisville, consultants,
community leaders and public officials met regularly to hear progress
reports and discuss major issues as work proceeded. In the case of Providence
Harbor, monthly meetings could be held to discuss the ten port problems in
more depth, and identify, analyze and make recommendations on m .ajor short and
long term planning ind management questions. The relationship of this group
to RIPA is illustrated in Option B-1 as largely informal, since it requires
the voluntary participation of the various groups listed in the enlargement
of the Providence Harbor project shown at the bottom of the figure. However,
.it could be an important precursor to the successful establishment of, a more
aggressive RIPA role in Providence Harbor by demonstrating the depth of con-
cern which exists, and serving as the focal point of an effort to organize
sufficient support in the General Assembly for financing special projects
through the Department of Economic Development. The RIPA can also use the
committee to introduce new, or at least more modern port management concepts
to encourage better decision making by port industry members.

.2. Targeted Grants-in-Aid: In this arrangement, the RIPA would take
a more active position in the Harbor by establishing a program of grants to
industry operations, particularly the Municipal Wharf, to be administered
through the Department of Economic Development specifically aimed at intro-
ducing better management and decision making practices (Option.B-2). Each
grant would be planned to solve a problem in an area where success orfailure
could be easily measured. Some of the.topics which would be covered include:
introducing a new data base for management decisions at the Municipal Wharf,
labor productivity analysis for stevadores, market potential studies for'
specific proposals at existing or new Harbor facilities, and an assessment of
rate-setting policies and their impact on the Municipal Wharf.

This grant-in-aid approach is frequently used at the federal and state level
to achieve public goals by providing financial assistance to agencies or
groups with direct responsibility for a particular problem. It does not
include the direct, exercise of control over a decision-making body or project
manager, rather it depends upon exerting influence by improving the information
available to such groups and the public.

3. Grants-in@-Aid/Narragansett B!ay Port Study: An expansion of the grants-
in-aid concept would place the Department of Economic Development squarely in
the role of undertaking a thorough study of waterborne commerce opportunities
and development needs in the Bay as a whole (Option B-3). A critical question
would be defining the role of the "Port of Narragansett Bay" for the next
twenty years and establishing priorities for the development and maintenance of
port facilities. While avoiding the issue of exercising direct control over

ENE L
SSE SLY

RHODE
ISLAND
PORT
AUTHORITY

IDEPARTMENT
JOF ECON C
P MIC
IDEVELO M F JNT

Providenc uonset/ Codding Melville
Harbor avisvill ove

PROVIDENCE
HARBOR

rCo=it77Zdvisor7 Co=itteel

membership: Municipal Wharf; Providence&
Worcester Railroad; Harborside
Park(Port Providence Ware-
housing); stevedores, pilots
and tugboats; shipping agents;
freight forwarders; shipping
companies; =nicipalities;
bankers; citizens

Option B-1
Providence Harbor as a Project of the Rhode Island Port Authority: Trade
Association/Advisory Committee.

denotes informal relationship

ENE L GOVERNOR
SSE SLY

RHODE
ISLAND
PORT
AUTHORITY
............. ............

DEPARTMENT
OF ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT

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

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

Provident uonset/ addingto Melville
Harbor avisvil ova

?ROVTDENC
HARBOR

[Targe r-:ted
G
d

*Manicipal Wharf
*Providence&Wcrcester
*Other developments

---- Option B-2
E
tf@
Y
RHO"'
ISLAW
PORT
UT14OR
A

C
N]IT

Co niLy
is
3'ry
Ad,7,
ommittee
RE

Providence Harbor as a Project of the Rhode Island Port Authority:
Targetted Grants in Aid.
denotes informal relationship
denotes specific assistance on management,financing,marketing issues

ENE L
SSE SLY

RHODE
ISLAND
PORT
AUTHORITY
... ......................

DEPARTMENT
OF ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
......... 0.. lHarbor and Bay
Management
lsqLud r
__3
4*0 .00

Providenc Uomset/ oddim9ton Melville
Harbor avisvill ove

FRCF711)&NC@r
HARBOR

Targetted
mvisor7 I ITargetted
La
lCommitteel 'A@ i da a

Kinicipal Wharf
*Providence&Worcester
*Other developments

Option B-3
Providence Harbor as a Project of the Rhode Island Port Authority:
L
ISLAND
PORT
U
A' 20@a

Targetted grants in Aid, with full study of Bay port management.
informal relationship
------denotes specific assistance on management,financing,marketing issues

the behavior of terminal operators, industry entrepreneurs and public officials,
this study program would placd RIPA and the Department of Economic Development
in an excellent position to influence private investment decisions, guide
and shape state policy pertaining to waterborne commerce and use its
resources in financing and loan guarantees to achieve development goals. In
addition, the state would finally have the factual basis it needs to determine
the extent to which RIPA should initiate facility management arrangements with
the Municipal Wharf and other terminals in Providence Harbor.

4. Limited Facility Mana?,ement Arrangements:. The Rhode Island Port
Authority has had several years of experience in the daily management of the
Quonset/Davisville industrial park as well as facility development planning
for all of its waterfront industrial property. In the limited facility manage-
ment concept, RIPA would become involved in operating part or all of the
Municipal Wharf on behalf of the City of Providence. (Option B-4) Providence
Harbor would become a formal projectof RIPA, although the Authority would
still not possess operational or strategic management responsibility over all
terminals in the Harbor. The RIPA would be in a position to implement the
findings of its management studies directly, rather than by attempting to exert
influence with grants and.good advice. The Providence Harbor project director
would be expected to increase.the amount of non-petroleum cargo handled and
increase revenues to a level where the Municipal Wharf could support itself
to a great degree. All of the planning, management and mqrketing tools at the
disposal of the Department of Economic Development will be needed for these
tasks@

The weak financial position of the Municipal Wharf will mean that some level
of operating subsidy will be required. At present the Wharf generates about
$700,000 in revenues, while its 1982 total costs (including interest and
capital payments) is projected by the Coastal Resources Center at URI to be
$2.2 million. Although Providence gets an additional $400,000 from lease
payments on about 100 acres of land surrounding the Wharf, and tax revenue
from port businesses on private land, these funds will not be available to
RIPA. During the initial years of the new operating arrangement, RIPA would
probably not be able to submit payments for use of the facilities sufficient
to cover city costs.

Another possible choice for the limited facility management option is the
leasing of city-owned berths or sale of adjacent land to private operators.
In this approach, lease payments would be expected to provide the city with a
reasonable return, while the operator would be expected to,finance site
improvements.

5. Full Harbor Facility Management: In this final, and most expansive
level of involvement, the RIPA would seek to obtain complete control of both
public and private marine terminals through operational agreements or purchase.
In essence, RIPA would be the sole port operator in Narragansett Bay, and the
primary agent for planning, developing, marketing and administering non-
petroleum facilities (Option B-5). Unlike the other options available to
RIPA, this proposal could not be implemented in one step due to its magnitude
and risk. RIPA would first need a plan of action which specified precisely
how the port industry would be improved by the dramatic steps, establishes
priorities, and identifies the financial resources which could be tapped to

ENE
SS

RHODE
I SLAND
PORT
AUTHORIM.

DEPA MENT
OF ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT

Providenc uonset/ oddingto Melville
Harbor avisvill ove

PROVIDENCE
HARBOR

Targetted taci Lty
Grant3-ia Managemen
Aid

*Municipal *Municipal
Wharf Wharf
*Pravidence&
Worcester
*Other devel-
opments

Option B-4
Providence Harbor as a Project of the' Rhode Island Port Authority:
Limited Facility Management.
-dernotes formal relationship

ENE L GOVERNOR
SE SLY

RHODE
ISLAND
PORT
AUTH RITY

DEPARTMENT
OF ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT

Providenc uonset/ Coddingto Melville
Harbor avisvill ova

?ROVID E
HARBOR

Co nity Facili y Operati
A nd M@,a agemen
is ry

*Municipal Wharf
*Field's Point
*Alleas Ave. piers
*Providence6gorcester

Option B-5
ENLC EPA ME
RT@
LF ONO
1)VEC OPM
E EL

Providence Harbor as a Project of the Rhode Island Port Authority:
Full Facility Management.
-denotes formal relationship

In addition, a major effort would be required to obtain
pay for the program
a sufficiently skilled staff to perform operations management and strategic
planning- Assuming acquisition was the preferred route, RIPA would have to
begin immediately to boost.revenues to begin to pay off the massive debt it
would incur. If operating agreements were obtained, state subsidies would
still be required to cover the period when terminals were performing below
the level where costs were fully covered. It is conceivable that other arrange-
ments which place constraints upon private operators and the Municipal Wharf
for relatively low cost could be developed which still achieve some measure
of RIPA control over most facilities.

C and D. Independent Providence Harbor Authority, State (C) or Municipal (D)

In these options, a new entity, separate from the Rhode Island Fort Authority,
but similar in structure and powers, would be created to govern the port
industry. It would be faced with the same array of choices for level of
involvement described for RIPA, with the exception that its perspective would
be more narrowly focused, andthat the resources which could be brought to
bear on the problems of the industry wouldbe quite limi.. ted in the near term.
A new state authority would be required in the event that RIPA could not be
encouraged to become involved in Harbor planning at more than a rudimentary
level, and the industry determined that a more centralized and independent
structure for the industry was vital to its survival, hence justifying the
effort needed to seek approval and implementation.

A municipality organized Harbor authority, similar to a council of governments
or a regional school district, would represent a response by communities to a
lack of state initiative,in the Harbor. Its organization would be similar to
the state authority (Options C and D), with the exception that it would be
even further removed from state resources and powers as it carried out its
mission as defined by the member communities. Several questions about the
effectiveness of this form of action need to be addressed, including the limited
financial resources available to even supply proper staffing, the lack of
expertise in port management, the isolation from state resources, and in the
case of the Municipal Wharf at least, the fact that the municipal approach has
not been particularly satisfactory.to date.

PORT INDUSTRY WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS

The Rhode Island Port Authority was determined to be the best candidate for
taking on the task of managing and planning for the port industry in Providence
Harbor, based upon its broad powers and responsibilities, its role in developing
other port facilities in Narragansett Bay, its state-wide perspective and
access to economic development resources.

The other options were found to have drawbacks which would impede the success
of any new management program. The City Port Department, when established,
will be an important step forward in the consolidation of port functions.
Many of the problems which the industry faces could be addressed to some extent
by a Port Department with adequate financial resources. However, the Depart-
ment will have to compete directly with other city agencies for funds and will
be subject to the same decision-making procedure which has been the source of

Te-n e-r Tal ouncil 0
@Assembly Governmen s
or

ndependant,
Port Auth-
ority

plann ng
management
marketing,
financing

facility
administration
and operations

opt ions C and D d
Independant Port Authority, either state run, or forme
by a group of municipalities level of involvement would be
similarto Option B, levels 1-5.
[
Co un C'l f

v
G joe@r n m e On ftt s
@ndependan
t
Port Aut h-
ority

In recommending the creation of new 'management institutions, it must be
recognized that the ultimate test of the organization is its performance,
which depends a great deal upon the talents and motivation of those working
for it.

It should be anticipated that a thorough and objective analysis of the probl
of port industry development in Narragansett Bay could conclude that the
biggest port industry problem in Narragansett Bay is an oversupply of under-
utilized piers and wharves, and might recommend a reduction or consolidation*
of public and private facilities, rather than their expansion. Another possible
recommendation might be to subcontract terminal operations to private firms
in exchange for a fixed fee which covers the cost of publicly financed capital
improvements. A good decision-making process would require serious considera-
tion of such an analysis, despite its pessimism and potential unpopularity with
the port industry. On the otherhand, a more detailed assessment of the bene-
fits which the region receives from port services could reveal important
savings which accrue from a terminal operation which does not appear to be
financially sound. Hence public sector involvement in seemingly unprofitable
ventures might be strongly endorsed by.an independent evaluation.

At present, the port industry in Providence Harbor cannot learn from these
analyses, because they have not yet been commissioned. Even if they had been
completed, there is presently no single decision-making body in a position to
utilize their results. The Port Industry Working Group believes that it is.
essential to establish a mechanism which has specific responsibility for .
addressing and solving port industry problems, and that an effective structure
can be created from institutional resources which are close at hand, and whose
;j capabilities are well understood.,

-c:-, U-11i ria f-- -pocr- L7r(Dm @he U"Rl (33coup
y
lay "'u'a 1-iLy

August 17, 1931

Introduction

In May of this year, the Chairman of the Commission asked Dr. John Knauss,
Deans of the URI Graduate School of Oceanography, for advice from the University's
research community on technical questions regarding water quality management
decisions in the upper Bay area. Dr. Knauss responded by forming a URI Advisory
Group to the Commission which is chaired by Stephen Olsen. Director of the Coastal
Resources Center. The Advisory Group (see Attachment A) was asked to address the
following three topics and to prepare a prelimunary response by August. The
questions are:

1. What are the existing and forth coming data on the upper Bay ecosystem
which can be utilized to assess the impact of various municipal waste
water treatment strategies?

2. How can such information be integrated with the many ongoing design
engineering efforts and ised to prioritize alterations to waste water
collection and treatment facilities?

3. What are meaningful goals for improvement to upper Bay water quality
that could be utilized when avaluating alternative engineering options?

In the brief time available to us, we have focused on questions 1 and 2.
Question 3 can be addressed only after a more complete analysis has been made
of the sources and fates of the many pollutants that presently cycle through
the upper Bay ecosystem. During the past six weeks, we have worked on two fronts.
Dr. Kelly and Don Robadue have reviewed many of the voluminous studies concern-
ing the Providence sewr system and the need to upgrade it. The Chairman. Dr.
Pilson and Dr. Hoffmann have attempted to review the various aspects of water
pollution in the upper Bay. We believe that it is important that the Commission
be familiar with the characteristics of the ecosystem we all hope to improve
and to understand how the Commission's efforts may affect the quality of upper
Bay waters.

In conformance with the recommendations of the Governor's task force, the
advisory group assumes that the Commission will, as its first priority, esure
that the Fields Point treatment plant will in the future be capable of treating
wastes at a secondary level as stipulated by EPA regulations. We have not
attempted to address the complex and expensice task of desigh engineering and
construction required to assure the long term treatment capabilities of the
Fields Point plant. We have focused rather, on the Providence sewer system as
a whole and the less well understood problem of the combined sewer overflows
(CSOs) which presently place very significant volume of untreted wastes in
the Providence River.

Aids to Decisin Making on the Providence Sewerage System

We conclude that when the Commission takes over the Providence sewer systme
and the ongoing engineering projects for improvements to the system, it should.
as a priorty, take steps to accomplish the following:

-2-

(a) establish baseline water quality conditions in the receiving Bay and
river waters.

(b) determine the present impact on water quality of existing discharges
From the CSO's

(C) DEVELOP THE APPROPRIATE TOOLS THAT WILL ENABLE Commission to
predict and quantify the expected benefits from a management strategy
or engineering alternative.

Efforts to date to model the Providence sewer system and receiving waters
have been appropriate for the plannig efforst undertaken through the 203 Program
and the facility planning efforts for the sewer system. We believe, however, taht
good engineering and management practice strongly suggests that a more advanced
predictive capability needs to be developed to help integrate and evaluate the
design engineering and future management strategies.

The first focus for efforst to better integrate an understanding of the
Providence wewr system and predicted improvements to the receiving wates could
be the Providence-Woonasquatucket-Moshassuck river system above the Fox Point
Hurricane Barrier. A short-term sampling program of storm events complemented
by long-term monitoring in this area, perhaps by the USGS, should povide an
adequate data base for modeling this relatively small and self-contained system.
Experience gained here could be applied totackling more complex problems else-
where. We believe that these recommendations are fully consistent with those
of the 208 Program and the conclusions being drawn by many of the engineers
presently working on the CSO problem.

Problems very similar to those that will be faced by the Commission when it
takes over the Providence sewer system are being addressed by similar groups in other cities.
It will be important for the Commission to keep the reast of these
efforts so that it may benefit from experience elsewhere. It is clesr that an
aggresive maintenance program will be crucial to a successful sewer system
management program. We suggest that early on in the process of funds allocation,
the Commission cast out their long-term operation and maintenance program. The
success of a maintenance program may accomplish as much for the ling-term improve-
ment i the quality of receiving waters as any simple alteration to the structure
of the sewer system.

Summary Findings on Pollution in the Upper Bay Ecosystem

Our review of research on topics that directly relate to developing a better
understanding of pollution in the upper Bay makes it clear that a wealth of infora-
tion exists and that important projects are underway or scheduled to begin in the
next two years. This research and minitoring, however, is conducted by various
agencies and individuals for different purposes with minimal efforst at overall
coordination and integraton. We feel that it is fully in keeping with the Commis-
sion's role that it assume a positon of leadership in the coordination and inte-
gration of research and monitoring that relates to water quality management in

-3-

the upper Bay. The research community would welcome a framework of management
questin and priority informational nees. We ar not suggusting that the
Commission should become a research agency, but rather wish to point out
the Commission could provide a focus for the many ongoing activities that direct-
ly relate to the Commission's own responsiblilities.

Ongoing and proposed research and/or monitoring efforts relevant to upper
Bay pollution problems are being undertaken by theDept. of Environmental Manage-
ment, engineering firms working on aspects of the Providence sewer system, the
EPA's Narragansett Research Lab, the United States Geological Survey, the Office
of Marine Pollution Assessment in NOAA, the R.I. Statewide Planning Program, the
Marine Ecosystems Research Laboratory (MERL), the Coastal Resources Center, the
URI Dept. of Ocean Engineering, and theURI Sea Grant Program. The following
summarizes some of the information and projects that we believe may be of parti-
cular interest to the Commission.

1. In 1978, EPA region 1 funded the Coastal Resources Center to produce
a summary and evaluation of all informarion pertaining to the water
quality of upper Narragansett Bay (Olsen and Lee, 1079). This docu-
ment provides, in non-technical language, a detailed synopsis of this
topic. The Center has also produced An Interpretive Atlas of Narra-
gansett Bay (Olsen. Bobadue and Lee. 1980). This well-illustrated
volume gives a comprehensice overview of our present understanding
of how the Bay functions as an integrated ecosystem. Both volumes
should be useful to Commission members and staff.
2. Thanks to a one-year survey of pollution gradients in th Bay and
some major pollutant sources, that was funded by EPA region 1 and
conducted by MERL in 1979-1980, we now have a more detailed under-
standing of the Bay's water quality characteristics. However, several
bacic questons remain unanswered. The MERL survey was conducted at
a time when the Field Pt. Plant was operating moderatly well. The
survey provides the following major findings:

(a) the MERL survey of pollution nutrient sources provides data on
inorganic nitrogen, phosphate and silicate in th eeffluents of
the three sewage treatment plants, CSO #002 and the Blackstone
and Pawtuxet Rivers. Very high nutrient levels cause the eutro-
phic conditions in the Upper Bay that is expressed by hidgh BOD
and widespread anoxic (no oxygen) conditions. When the MERL
survey data is combined with prelimunary data for organic and
particulate nutrients, the conclusion is that the tow rivers
contribute about as much nitrogen and phosphate as the effluents
from the Fiels Point plant. We do not know the significance of
inputs form the other streams and rivers, the approximately 90
CSO's or storm runoff. The Major terms for outrient inputs,
howeer, are known.
(b) As expected, due to relatively efficient chlorination processes
at all sewage treatment plants, the sources of coliforms are not
treated effluent wates. Here again the rivers and CSO's appear
to dominate as the major sources. The Pawtuxet is particularly
important.

-4-

(c) The Fields Point Plant is the major measurd source for copper
Lead and cadmium were not measurd for Fieds Point during the
survey.

(d) Organsms living in and on the bottom of the Bay are known to plany
an important role in recycling nutrients and some pollutants back
into the overlying waters. Very preliminary data for the upper
Bay suggests that this process is important in maintaining high
nutrient levels in this area.
(e) The MERL biweekly survey, which was conducted along a transect
from the head of the Bay to th e Sound, confirms that the upper
Bay is the primary source of all major pollutants to the Bay
ecosystem. The waters above Conimicut Point are characterized
by low oxygen levels and high concentrations of metals, petro-
leum and other pollutants. In the Providence River, zoopLanktoa
populations are depressed and the growth of the animals that are
present is slower than in comparable non-polluted areas.

4. Experiments using microcosms of Narragansett Bay at MERL provide excit-
ing insights into the possible results of various management strategies.

One set of experiments suggests that the highly polluted sediments
in the upper Bay would not severely pollute overlying waters if
waterborne sources of pollution were stopped.

A future set of experiments could test a hypothesis that the sili-
cate tio nitrogen ratio in the Bay waters determines whether very
small flagelate plankton or diatoms will dominate the plant plankton
(phytoplankton) community. The flagellates that dominate in the
Providence River may be unsuitable as food for zooplenkton (animal
plankton), fish and shellfish, Further down Bay diatons dominate
and support abundant fish and shellfish populations. for diatoms
to dominate the silicate to nitrogen ratio must be around 1:.4
(rather than1;1 OR GREATER AS IN THE UPPER bAY). iT MIGHT BE
possible to increase the range of diatoms by adding silicate to
sewage treatment plant effluents.

5. According to Dr. Phelps, of the EPA Narragansett Research Lab, toxic
effects from most pollutants are seen when concentratons in the water
are 3 to5 the levels found in clean enviroments. Metals and several
other pollutants exceed this concentration factor in the Providence
River; copper, for example, is 20 times above ambient levels.

6. EPA Region 1 has funded Dr. Malcolm Spaulding (URI Ocean Engineering)
to update and improve existing water quality hydrodynamic models for
is presently conducting an intensice sampling program in a transect
across the Bay off Gaspee Point, This will provide badly needed data
for future mideling. At present, all hydrodynamic models rely primarily
for their data or information gathered in the early 1930's.

-5-

-Dr. Spaulding's new data and models provide an important tool
for water quality management in the upper Bay.

-Preliminary estimates are that the flushing rate of the Providence
River is approximately 10-15% per day.

7. The NOAA Office of Marine Pollution Assessment has funded Dr. EVA Hoffman
at URI to conduct a major three-year study of petroleum pollution levels
in urban runoff. Dr. Hoffman is conducting her research in the Provi-
dence area and will provide very important data on pollutants, including
nutrients, in storm runoff.

8. One of the principal characteristics of pullution in the uppr Bay is
pervasive eutrophication due to the large discharges of nutrients to
the area and a subsequent chronic problem of low oxygen levels in the
Providence River. The scientific community is not convinced that the
low oxygen conditions can be significantly improved by efforts to re-
construct and upgrade treatment facilities in the Providence area sinece
primary and secondary treatment do not emove these constituents form
the treated waters. Efforts to upgrade the Providence sewer system,
particularly to correct the CSO discharge prblem, may significantly
reuce coliform levels in the Providence River. Metals and organic
compounds, some of which are extremely toxic, will be most effectively
checked at their sources, before they enter the sewer system.

Attachment A

The URI Advisory Group to the Water Quality Commission

Stephen Olsen, Chairman Director, URI Coastal Resources Center
Dr. Eva Hoffman Marin Scientist. Graduate School of
Oceanography
Dr. William Kelly Chairman, Dept. of Civil Engineering
and Director, R.I. Water Resource Center
Dr.Michael Pilson Professor of Oceanography and Director of
` the Marine Ecosystem Research Laboratory

Donald Bobadue Marine Resources Specialist, Coastal re-
sources Center

URI University of
Division of Marine Resources
Marine Advisory Service, Coastal Resources
(401) 702-0211

To: HELP Committee

From: Donald Robadue, Ellen Deason, CRC

Date: July 8, 1982

Re: 14 July Meeting

Selecting Use Priorities for Providence Harbor

During the last four sessions we have focused on the problem of water quality
and its relationship to shore and water uses. The single-most important finan-
cial investment the state and federal goverment is making in the Harbor is
the reconstruction of the Field's Point sewage treatment plant, along with
other physical and management improvements to the Providence sewage system.
In the entire 2160 km2 drainage basin which sends discharges eventually to the
Harbor, will over $400 million in municipal sewage treatment projects has
been proposed. The current state water quality plan for the Providence River
states that this receiving water body will be in compliance with its goal
once the effluent limitations for all point discharges are met. Unfortunately,
federal support for its facility construction grants program is waning with
more emphasis placed on demonstrated improvements. In addition, national
industrial pretreatment requirements are likely to be considerably weakened.
It has become important to discuss facility construction priorities, industrial
pretreatment requirements and many other aspects of controlling point and
non-point discharges in terms of much more specific goals for marine water use.
This in turn requires that we utilize all available information about the
sources, fates, and effects of pollutant discharges on Narragansett Bay, press
for additional facts where needed, and begin to critically examine the benefits
and losses to the State from various clean-up options.

The Special Area Planning Project is designed to enable the Coastal Resources
Management Council to play an active role in the quest for a water quality
improvement strategy for the Harbor and Bay. As we have already discussed,
the assignment of specific use priorities to portions of the Saekonk and
providence Rivers quickly leads to some dramatic implications in water quality
planning and regulation of dicharges, as well as the importance which we
should place on non-pollution concerns. With the fact in mind, we would like
your assistance in a preliminary identification of use priories in various
sections of the Harbor and Upper Bay during our meeting on July 14. The
following questions, as well as material we have distributed, or discussed
in previous sessions, are intended to guide your thinking. The basic catergories
are: shellfishing, shellfish habitat, fish habitat, swimming, boating, shore
uses such as residential, commercial and port.

1. Should water quality eforts be directed at protecting access to existing
shellfishing grownds south of Conimicut Point, or increasing access north-
ward to the lower Providence River?

HELP Committee
Page two
July 8, 1982

2. Should swimming be possible as far north as Sabin Point or Field's Point?
Would very stringent seasonal disinfection requirements be in order?

3. Should pollution control effects be focused on maintaining good shellfish
habitat, and how far north should these efforts be extended?

4. Is reduction of odor and better aesthetics, increased disinfection, or both
desirable north of Pawtuxet Neck/Sabin Point, to support recreational
boating?

5. In terms of disinfection policy, if a choice between good fish and shellfish
habitat, or safe swimming and boating had to be made, which is more impor-
tant?

6. Which foreseeable uses of the shore and water north of Pawtuxet Neck/
Sabin Point in the Seekonk River, as well as Mushassuck and Woonasquatucket,
are likely to be most limited by the present water quality conditions?

7. In which use priority topics would additional information be most useful
to you in making a decisions on a designation?

8. If it were essential to the use of a specific portion of the estuary,
should th state establish stricter discharge limits?

9. If it did not interfere with the specific coastal and water use goals for
the Harbor and Bay, should the state be more flexible in permitting certain
discharges?

10. In your view, how valid and important is the problem of continued degrada-
tion of the waters of the entire Narragansett Bay from Providence River
sources?

11. Given your understanding of the present and potential economic condition
of the state and the region, how important is it to make clearly stated
tradeoffs between the cost of clean-up and the benefits to be derived
from it? Which side should be favored?

The discussions of water quality which we are holding as part of the Special
Area Planning Project, and the identification of use priories within that
framework, is the first step in the development of draft proposals for considera-
tion by the Coastal Resources Management Council. The process of plan review
and adoption will include many state and federal agencies as well as the public.
The HELP Committee's participation during the period of information gathering
and idea formulation has been most valuable in producing new ideas, and providing
and early test of the strength and weakness of specific proposals.

DR/ED:dzc

PLANNING FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS
IN UPPER NARRAGANSETT BAY
AND ITS TRIBUTARIES

A draft report to the Harbor Estuary and
Land Planning Advisory Committee of the
Coastal Resources Management Council

June 1982

Prepared by Ellen E. Deason
Coastal Resources Center
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
Narragansett, R.I.

Donald Robadue, Jr., Project Coordinator

INTRODUCTION

Since the Clean Water Act amendments of 1972, a national construction pro-
ject has been working toward the ambitious goal of "fishable, swimmable
waters by 1983." Water quality improvements in the Providence River and
many.other estuaries nationwide will clearly not meet that deadline, and
it is time to reassess the goal as well as the time frame. Until recently,
treatment facilities have been designed to meet federal effluent standards
on the assumption that it is too difficult to base the design of facilities
on predictions of actual water quality improvements. However, applications
for federal construction grant funds must now,include a cost-benefit
analysis. This means that funding.will be based, at least in part, on the
projected benefits resulting from improved water quality rather than the
previous criteria of effluent standards. "Benefits" will be measured by
expanded or new uses which will be possible in the cleaner water resulting
from the treatment facility. Such analysis requires information,on the
pollutants interfering with the desirable uses, their sources, their behavior
in the estuary and the response of the ecosy.stem to changes in the loadings
of these pollutants. Although there are major gaps in our knowledge of
most.of these areas, pulling together the available information can point to
priorities for both treatment needs and additional information.

These water quality issues have been under consideration.by-the Harbor
Estuary and Land Planning (HELP) Advisory Committee which was established in
January 1982 to assist the Urban Waterfronts Subcommittee of the Coastal
Resources Management Council (CRMC) in its effort to develop a Special Area
Management Plan for Providence Harbor. The purpose of this proposed plan is
twofold. First, the CRMC seeks to foster a concerted.effort for waterfront
revitalization. Secondly, the CRMC desires to assure a careful balance of
public and private uses in the area in order to achieve the goals of increased
recreational opportunities, port development, compatible shoreline uses and
improved water quality. The HELP Committee has approached the topic of water
quality by examining several management questions which consider the
desirability and feasibility of potential uses in the Providence River and
Upper Narragansett Bay.

Water Quality Planning and Management Questions:

1. Would it be desirable to expand shellfishing opportunities in the Upper
Bay and Providence River? What water quality improvements would be neces-
sary to achieve this goal?

2. How is water quality related to finfishing opportunities in the Upper Bay,
Providence River, and Seekonk River?

3. Is water quality interfering with swimming in the Upper Bay or the
Providence River?

4. 'How does water aualitv limit recreational boating in the Upper Bay,
17. @
Providence River, or Seekonk River?

5. Current state management establishes water quality goals for sLream
segments and subareas of the bay and regulates effluents to a0iieve
those goals. What are the consequences of this ap@proach in terms of
"down stream" cumulative effects?

1. wonD IT BE DESIRABLE TO EXPAND SHELLFISHING OPPORTTIITIES IN THE UPPER
BAY? ITHAT WATER QUALITY IM-PROMfENTS WOULD BE 'MTECESSARY TO ACHIEVE
THIS GOAL?

Water Ouality-Goals for Shellfishin&

There are extensive shellfish beds in the upper bay including some of the
richest in Narragansett Bay. The beds in the lower Providence River north
of Conimicut Point were completely closed to shellfishing in the early
1950s and since 1969, the area between Conimicut Point in Warwick and
Prudence Island has been opened on a conditional basis only (Figure 1).
Closures have varied from 16 to 100 percent of the year as shown in Table 1.
An approved shellfishing, area must meet legal criteria established by the
Food and Drug Administration and incorporated into RI's water quality classi-
fication system. The major obstacle to meeting this standard in the Upper
Bay is high concentrations of total coliform and fecal coliform bacteria,
which are used as an i ndicator for bacteria and viruses.

The combined sewer overflows (CSOs) in Providence, Pawtucket, and Central
Falls are regarded as the-major reason for the closures. Since substantial
rainfall causes dilute but untreated sewage to overflow into the Providence
River and tributaries, Upper Narragansett Bay is closed to shellfishing for
;7 days following 0.5 to 1.0 inch of rain in Providence in 24 hours and for
10 days following 1.0 or more inches. (Prior to 1972, closures were for 5
days following 0.75 inches). In December of 1978, the failure of the Field's
Point sewage treatmen't plant caused a permanent emergency closure of the
entire Upper Bay. Due to repairs to the Field's Point plant which
restored primary treatment with disinfection and the dry winter of 1979-80,
the area was reopened conditionally in February 1980 (lower portion) and
July 1981 (upper portion). The closure line was again moved south last
December at the start of the wet season, but DEM anticipates it will be
moved back to Conimicut Point in June or July.

Increased access to shellfishing would be one of the most visable indica-
tions of improved water quality in the Upper Bay. It is also the use that
requires meeting the most stringent water quality requirements. A range
of possible goals for shellfishing in the Upper Bay include:

1. opening the permanently closed beds north of Conimicut Point
2. opening the area between Conimicut Point and-Prudence Island on an
unconditional basis
3. reducing the number of closure days in the conditional area
4. maintaining the st'atus quo
5. closing additional areas,
6. opening additional areas for harvesting followed bv depuration

Coliform Problem: Sources and Proposed Abatement

As a first step toward extending shellfishing Iin the Upper Bay, co-liform
concentrations would need to be lowered. Sewage treatment@ plants are
presently required to chlorinate effluent year round. Whcti they are func-
tioning properly, they should not be a source of coliforms. CSOs are

Ala
Figure 1. Shellfish Beds

1) F K 0. N K

bei I r

t
Act

@'P R'OV I P I N C 1.
t

A 4-S, T N
kv
A

I A

ell,
v

...........

It.
IN 1,
j

I land
E
ir c

C',

TABLE 1.
Shellfish Closures in Upper Narrag ansett Bay "Conditional Area" Between
Conimicut Point and Prudence Island

Year' @ercent of year closed t o shellfishing

19,69 22

1970 16-

1971 27

1972 72

1973 67

1974 49

1975 55

1976 50

1977 71

1978 74

1979 .100

1980 61

1981 51

Source: R.I. Department of Environmental Management

suspected to be a major coliform source.. Providence has 65 overflows
which discharge into the Seekonk, Woonasquatucket, Moshassuck, West and
Providence Rivers. Sampling conducted by URI's Marine Ecosystem Research
Laboratory (MERL) indicated that the Blackstone River, whichreceives over-
flows from 8 Central Falls and 22 Pawtucket CSOs, is a major source of
fecal coliforms-1 The average concentration at the mouth of the Blackstone
during the dry year of 1979-80 was 6400 most probable number (MYN) of
fecal coliform's per.100 milliliters (/100ml) and concentrations ranged as
high as 23,000. (The standard for shellfishing is 15 TAPN/100 ml). Con-
centrations of coliforms decreased rapidly down the Providence River
(Figure 2), probably because they do not 'survive well in salt water.
Below Warwick Point they were not,detectable. The MERL study found that
the Pawtuxet River also contributes.high concentrations of coliform (mean
1100, maximum 16,000 MPN/100 ml in 1979-80), although there are no CSOs
in its drainage basin. These high values may result from urban storm
water runoff or improperly chlorinated effluent.

One difficulty in planning for a reduction in coliforms is that measuring
an improvement in coliform levels is complicated by great variations in ,
their abundance. Routinesampling is conducted by DEM once. a week in the
Upper Bay, but because of changes in tide height and rainfall it is diffi-
cult to detect trends:e,xcept by examining long term records. For example,
there has been no dramatic lowering of coliform concentrations since the
repairs to the Field's Point Plant. There are, however, fewer of the
sporadic extremely high values which occurred when sludge was washed out
of the broken down plant during wet weather.

Lack of knowl edge of estuarine circulation is another problem. Unlike a
river, where downstream concentrations of pollutants are diluted by stream
flow, tidal movements tend to concentrate substances in the upper reaches
of the estuary. Currents and wind patterns complicate the circulation, I
pattern so that concentrations and distributions are not easily calculated.
In the case of coliforms, concentrations are also affected by die-off, which
is related to temperature and therefore occurs at different rates depending
on the season. A computer model of Upper Bay circulation currently being
developed by Dr. M. Spaulding of URI should aid in predicting changes in
the amounts and distributions of coliforms which would result from reducing
various sources.

Plans were prepared to treat the overflows from Providence CSOs as part
of the Providence Facilities-2 Nine satellite treatment facilities were
proposed which would consolidate overflows and provide primary treatment
and disinfection. Design work is.proceeding on CSO facility #9, at
Field's Point, which would treat combined sewage and runoff from a large
drainage area in South Providence. Study of area #2 has indicated that
approximately 70 percent of the area is not composed of combined sewers,
but rather separate sanitary and storm sewers. Wet weather ovf-rflows
were observed at only 3 or 14 overflow points in area #2. Insread of
the originally proposed treatment facility, modifications to the sewer
lines which would prevent overflows and allow later treatment at the sew-
age treatment plant are now under consideration,

2 3 6 6 1210 13 14 15 16 17
STATION
ra 00

z
0
@-4 r-4

C4 0

r-4
U) 4,00-

0 C14

F-@ Q)
0 b-0
U Cd 200-

>
Cd

0 1. r
16 24 32 40

(n
a.
C3 H a. Z M
@j Q@ d
x ix 0 (A
0 D
U-

DISTANCE (k M) FROM FOX PT

e
Figure 2. AVerage.fecal conform concentrations along th
Marine Ecosystem Research Laboratory transect,
1975-80. Average of surface and bottom values.
Dashed line indicates shellfish limit of 15
MPN1100 ml.
Fromoviatt, 1981.1

The study of.proposed CSO area #21 raises questions about the benefits to
water quality which can be achieved by CSO treatment in many areas of
Providence. Treatment facility #2 had the largest drainage area and design
flow of the nine proposed. The consultants have concluded that "only limited
improvements of water quality can be expected as a result'of combined sewer
overflow abatement within-only the CSO #2 area." An examination of the
sewer system maps of each of the areas drained by overflows suggests that much
of the system is already separated. The downtown area is the most combined.
and would appear to be the logical place to look for a water quality improve-
ment from CSO treatment. The fact that much of the system is separated does
not solve the problems relating to shellfishing. Separate.stormwater can
be a large source of coliforms and.other pollutants, as indicated in Table 2.
The most polluted of the combined sewers have higher concentrations than
separate stormwater, but stormwater can be far more polluted than the weakest
combined sewer overflows.
Let us ignor@ for the moment the question regarding the importance of CSOs
as sources of coliform bacteria. If-the proposed CSO treatment facilities
were constructed and were effective in reducing coliforms in the Upper Bay,
what are the best conditions which.could be expected? According to the
Combined Sewer Management Report, rainfall in excess of 0.01 inches per
hour triggers overflows, resulting in approximately 125 overflow events per
year with an average duration of 6-7 hours. Implementation of the nine
satellite plants would eliminate 90 percent of untreated overflows, leaving
approximately 12 overflow events per year.2 Since overflows would not be
eliminated, it appears that the Upper Bay shellfish area could not be opened
unconditionally, although closure days would probably be reduced. Depending
on the final designs for CSO treatment, some of the overflows may receive
partial treatment and closure regulations could be modified. Assuming that
the 1-2 yearly overflows result in the current 7 or 10 day closure, sbellfishing
could be prohibited for 84-120 days of 23-33 percent of the year. This esti-
mate ignores the substantial coliform contribution of the rivers and untreated
.stormwater runoff which could easily increase actual closures. In addition,
the productive beds in the northern portion of the Upper Bay are-open only-
in the summer and fall. Last year, access was limited to one-day a week to
prevent a glut of quahogs on the market. Overflows within 10-d4y recoveries
couldresult in the loss of two weeks' access to these beds and fishermen worry
that a few rainy days could resultin a higher proportional-closure-of these
beds.

Other Human Health and Habitat Concerns

If CSOs were treated, and the reduction in coliform levels were sufficient
to reduce the number of closure days in the conditional area and extend sbell-
fishing to the quahog beds between Conimicut and Gaspee Points, at least of] a
conditional basis, what are the other problems in exploiting this resourco?

Metals: Concentrations of metals in quahogs from the Upper Bay and Providence
River can be compared to alert levels proposed by the Food and.Drug Administra-
tion (FDA) as indicators for degradation of growing areas due to industrial.
contamination.3

TABLE 2.
Summary of Wastewater Characteristics-of Combined Sewage and Separate
Stormwater

Providence, Pawtucket
and Central Falls

Combined Sewage Separate StoraLwater

5-day BOD,, mg/1 2.5-480 3.5-115
COD, mg/l 32-1360 42.5-410
Suspended solids, mg/l 12-839 15-583
Total coliform, #/100 ml 2 x lo5_1-3 x 107 0-5 x 106
Fecal coliform, #/100 ml 230-1.5 x 106 0-1.6 x 104
Lead, mg/l 0.03-3.1 0.03-1.2
Copper, mg/1 0.03-1.6 0.01-0.12
Nickel, mg/l 0.01-2.0 0.01-0.19
Zinc, mg/1 0.04-1.4 0.11-2.2

From the Combined Sewer Management Report, May 19, 1977.
Anderson-Nichols & Co., Inc. and Waterman Engineering Co.2

Sampling of Upper Bay quahogs indicates that three metals, chromium,
copper
and zinc are present in concentrations higher than proposed FDA alert
levels. While this does not imply a danger to human health, it indicates
levels exceed those normally expected in shellfish not affected by industrial
pollution (Table 3). Quahogs have also been tested for cadmium and lead,
which do not exceed the alert level. No data is available for mercury.

EPA has established guidelines for maximum concentrations of priority pollu-
tants, including metals, in the water which will not interfere with use as
a salt water habitat. Separate guidelines have been set for the protection
of human health where organisms grown in the water are consumed.8

Mercury concentrations in the water exceed EPA Guidelines for human consump-
tion of organisms and for salt water habitat in the industrial area of the
Providence River;9 however, there are no important shellfish beds in this
area (Figure 3). Concentrations are also high in the lower Providence River
in the vicinity of the rich shellfish beds, but do not exceed EPA standards.
Nickel concentrations do not exceed the limit for human consumption, but are
greater than the maximum for good habitat, as defined by EPA, along the
entire length of the Providence Riverlo (Figure 4). In the case of copper,
no EPA guidelines have been set for human health, but this meial also exceeds
habitat limits throughout'the entire Providence Riverl, 10, 1 , 12 (Figure 5).
Lead and cadmium do not exceed EPA guidelines for water concentrations. No
data is available for chromium, zinc, silver, or cyanide. According to the
available information, metals are typically 10-20 times more concentrated
in the Providence River than in RI Sound.

While there are no standards to suggest a cri 'tical level. for concentrations
of.metals in the sediments, analyses indicate that metals are.10-100 times
more concentrated in the sediments of the Providence River than in.tbe lower
Bay. Many metals accumulate in the sediments: u to 75 percent of the copper
entering the Upper Bay ends up in the sediments.13

Experiments with quahog larvae found a mortality of 10 percent at conCentra-
tions of 6 ppb copper and 25 percent mortality at 10 ppb.13 These concentra-
tions are equivalent to average levels in the lower Providence River and
off Field's Point, respectively (Figure 5). However, the experiments were
conducted with inorganic copper only, while the mixture of copper forms
found in the river may be less toxic. Chromium affects clam and mussel
metabolism 14 and zinc retards bivalve development and sperm motilitv.15
Silver was identified as one of the more toxic metals to juahog larvae and
high concentrations have been found in Long Island Sound . 6 Some information
on silver concentrations in Narragamsett Bay would be useful.

Actual toxic ity will vary depending on conditions in the Bay. Some of these
effects may tend to balance each other out. For instance, metal concentra-
tions are hi-hest in'the winter,l but some metals are less toxic at low
temperatures.17 An important consideratioii in planning improvements is the
effect of combinations of metals. While mo.,@t experiments are conducted with
a single metal, the presence of another meial canincrease the toxicity. For
example, zinc makes copper more toxic to bivalves. 18 This synergistic effect
is likelyto occur in the complex metal mi%ttires found in the Providence
River, implying that metal standards shou.1d be set with a margin for safety.

TABLE 3.
Metals Exceeding Alert Levels in Upper Narragansett Bay Quahogs

Proposed FDA "Alert Level" for Concentrations in Opper
Metal Quahogs3 Bay Quahogs Reference

ppm wet weight ppm dry weight ppm wet weight ppm dry weight
Chromium 1.0 0.5 - 1.2* USACE, 1976 4

0 - 1.6 DEM

5
10 10.5 25* Phelps, 1-975

Copper 10 8 - 13 USACE, 1976

I - 14* DEM

6
100 80 Jernigan et al., 1970

Zinc 65 7 66* DEM
650 240 Elisler et al., 1978 7

*Exceeds alert level

F3;, I T-) E N C r

2 rn i.

E.-k S T 0 1 2 3 krn

P R v i E, 1; C E

C R AS T C-) N
.14-

.124

WARWICK

.136
B A RR 1 N.',-,T 0 N

AARREN

.102
Je,

.083 BRI STOL.

FIGURE 3.
9
Mercury Concentrations in Upper Bay Water (ppb) (Mukherji, 1979)
EPA Guideline for Salt Water Habitat: .250 ppb
EPA Guideline for Human Consumption: .146 ppb

0 2mi.

I T-
E.-" S T 0 2 3 km

P R 0\1* i DE C E

C
'STON
R'N

W A R'@%7 I C K

R R I N 171, ON

@@-ARREN
6.6

BR 15-1 OL

5.3

FIGLTRE 4.
Nickel Concentrations in Upper Bay Water (ppb) (Bender, 1977) 10
EPA Guideline for Salt Water Habitat: 7.4 ppb
EPA Guideline for Human Consumption: 100'ppb

T1.6

2
2mi.

E.111 S 7 2 3 km

P 3V i 1-C

C S T

WA F"%-" I C K

SARRIN'TON

"AR
7 REN

4.
3
5.6
3.5

BR I ST i--)L
23
3.5

1..7
2.2

2.5
1 7
1.4

FIGURE 5.
Copper Concentrations in Upper@ Bay Water (ppb) 1, 10, 11, 12
EPA Guideline for Salt Water Habitat: 4.0 ppb

It is evident that concentrations of several metals are elevated in the area
of potential shellfishing in the Providence River. None of the concentra-
tions exceed current EPA health standards for consumption of shellfish, but
several are high enough to degrade the habitat and reduce quahog growth and.
survival. More specific information on quahog requirements will be gathered
during the coming year by Dr. Richard Crawford at the Coastal Resources
Center, but at present it appears that metal concentrations would interfere
with the health of the shellfish resource north of Conimicut Point.

Different sources are responsible for different metals. The Providence
sewer system receive5 1735 industrial effluents which funnel through the
Fields Point plant,l the major source for copper, nickel, zinc and chromium.,
Lead enters the Providence River primarily from runoff. The Blackstone
River is the major source of cadmium and also contributes some copper and
lead. While nonpoint sources for metals such as runoff would be hard to
control, the Field's Point treatment plant is an important source of most of
those metals-which exceed alert levels or EPA Guidelines: copper, nickel,
chromium and zinc. Sources of mercury need more investigation. A comparison
of metal concentrations in the waste flowing to the treatment plant during
the partial vacation shut down of industry for the first two weeks of July,
1980, and during subsequent industry operations, supports the conclusion
that a high proportion of.most metals are due to industrial effluents (Table
4). Since the shut down was only partial, the actual contribution by indus-
try is probably even higher. Thus it would appear that an aggressive pre-
treatment program requiring a reduction of metals before discharge of indus-
trial effluent to the sewer system could be very effective in reducing metals
entering Narragansett Bay. A pretreatment program for the Providence sewer
system is being developed by Charles Krasnoff & Associates-19 As currently
proposed, the pretreatment program woul 'd limit only.copper and nickel,
reducing the concentration which industries could add to the sewer system
to about half their current levels. The effect of such reductions on the
levels present in the Bay will depend on industrial and domestic water use,
removal efficiencies at the Field's Point Plant, industry activity, and pro-
cesses within the Bay, such as water circulation and exchange of metals
between the water and sediments. Experiments at MERL have given optimistic
indications of the effects of reducing pollutant loadings. New, clean
sediment encased the metals in the old bottom material and concentrations
improved in the water column.

Petroleum hvdrocarbons: Experiments conducted at URI's MERL indicate that
concentrations of #2 fuel oil in the sediment in excess of 500 ppm have a
chronic deleterious effect on the organisms.20 This number cannot be applied
directly to Narragansett Bay since #2 fuel oil is one of the most toxic
forms, while a mixture of hydrocarbons are present in Narragansett Bay sedi-
ments that may be less toxic. However, sediment concentrations exceed this
chronic level in the Upper Bay and increase to 10 times in the Providence
River (Figure 6). H@drocarbons have been shown to decrease growth rates of
very young quahogs.2 Used crankcase oil, which accounts for about 10 percent
of the total reaching the Upper Bay, was the most toxic tested. Quahogs incor-
porate hydrocarbons into their tissues and shellfish taken from the Upper Bay
are visably darker than those from areas with lower hydrocarbons. The
effect on people is unknown.

TABLE 4.
Industrial Metal Contributions to Field's Point Wastewater Flows

% of load due to industries
Metal shut down, July 1980

Cadmium 69
Copper 61

Chromium 68

Lead 7

Nickel 67

Silver 52

Zinc 73

Cyanide 80
Mercury 21

from Table 17, Industrial Wastewater Pretreatment Program: Pretreatment
Limitations, Charles J. Krasnoff & Associates, Inc., January 28, 1982.19

D E N C

14 10
rn,

57-70

W."

07'
36

:7A.
361
400 -57 3

2 5- F
-250

300
25
r:

. .............
al

f@7
6 0

2-5

6
locations
pf,7; !rv wr.
i n @-i v

From ref erences 21 22 23 24

Dr. Eva Hoffman has investigated the sources of petroleum hydrocarbons in
the Upper Bay and its watershed (Figure 7).26 Sewage treatment plants and
CSO dry weather flows contribute an estimated 60 percent of the total, with
50 percent entering from the Providence system. Much of this portion could
be removed by industrial pretreatment. However, at present, the environ-
mental effects of hydrocarbons have not been considered in setting petroleum
limits for the industrial pretreatment program. Crankcase oil is also known
to be an important and particularly toxic component of hydrocarbons in the
sewer system. A waste oil recycling program was instituted in 1980 in an
effort to reduce improper disposal. Unfortunately, data necessary to
evalute the success of the publicity program to encourage recycling is not
available. However, rough calculations indicate that service stations alone
generated more used oil than the amount recycled last year * In addition,
35 percent of Rhode Islanders change their own oil. An aggressive program
could reduce the amount discarded down drains and dumped on the ground.

One of,the problems in projecting water quality improvements if oil inputs
to the Bay were reduced is the persistence of hydrocarbons in the sediments.
In the MERL experiments, one shot class of oil was added to 22 tons of water.
After one year the sediment had not cleansed itself, and projections indicated
that the process would take two years. Experience with oil spills suggests
that recovery from these large amounts of oil generally occurs within 10
years.

Oxygen: A sufficient level of oxygen dissolved in the water is perhaps the
major requirement for a good habitat. Four milligrams per liter (mg/1) is
a general level considered necessary, although quahogs can survive lower
levels for a few days by becoming completely inactive. However, the more
stressed the population is by other pollutants such as metals and hydrocarbons,
the less likely the quahogs are to survive even short periods of oxygen stress.
Mass mortalities have been observed in the Providence River and oxygen con-
centrations are very low every summer often reaching zero in the upper areas
of the river (Figure 8).

Seve ral factors can cause low oxygen concentrations. Cold water can contain
50 percent more dissolved oxygen than warm water, which is one reason why
problems are.more acute in the summer. Undecomposed organic matter such as
that found in sewage treatment plant effluent is mostly in the form of
ammonia, which uses oxygen in a chemical conversion to nitrate. Nutrients
such as nitrogen, phosphorus and silica entering from the rivers, CSOs,
runoff and effluents stimulate the growth of microscopic plants called phyto-
plankton. These plants produce oxygen as they grow, but their decay consumes
large amounts of oxygen. Respiration of organisms in the sediment also
removes oxygen from the water. The oxygen required to decompose organic
matter in treatment plant effluent is measured over 5 days as Biological
Oxygen Demand (BOD). Sewage treatment plant effluent is often regarded as
the major cause of oxygen depletion in pollurion urban waters. However,
preliminary estimates for the Providence River suggest that nutrients may
be an even more important cause of the ox-ygc,n problem (Table 5). While
treatment plant BOD may account for less than 20 percent of the total demand,
the indirect effects of nutrients leading t(i phytoplankton decay and the direct

-17

Figure 7

OIL POLLUTION IN TtIE
UPPER NARRAGANSETT IBAY WATERSHED

VIIIIIECT 1IMSTOIAL DISCHA1106f OIL SPILLI M"llf'rif
*a rofts/vIll ...... &I NO$ fALLOUT; TO"'evp
..........
................
..............
. ..............
.............

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

..............
............
...... ....
: : : : :upoaw ku"orp 3b 9,
............... .............
.......... ....... ......

............ ...................
SOP

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

. . .........

q
....... fREArmf4t OL Aw T1

POMT OF ENTRY OF-OIL POLLUTION
UPPER NARRAGANSETT BAY WATERSHED

ljppfm call
oil T0,43tvft
roms.*Tp

-@noa, E, T iloqmo@n ,-L 26
oil

BOTTOM 0., mg L
WATER
4 G. - 7
...... UAI
PROVIDENCE

7@- 8
1_2 4-5

/IP

A),

Figure 8 Approxi-mate distribution of dissolved oxygen
"T1 the near bottom waters of Narragansett
Bay on July 26-27, 1972. Data from the
University cf Rhode Island "Bav Watch" pro-
g r a 7-,

TABLE 5.
Preliminary Estimates of oxygen Requirements in the Providence
River.27

Source Metric Tons Oxygen Per Day Percent

3 sewage treatment
plants

carbon (5 day BOD)
1977 22 17

ammonia 12.5 10

phytoplankton decay 55 44

sediment removal 36 29

effects 2?f ammonia oxidation may require more than 50 percent of the oxygen
demand. Dr. Scott Nixon of URI willbe studying this problem in the
Providence River starting this summer.

Effective secondary treatment at the Field's Point plant will reduce the
BOD from this source, which accounted for 59 percent of the total from
sewage treatment plants in 1977.28 If nutrients are confirmed to be a major
reason for low oxygen levels in the Providence River, tertiary treatment
to reduce nitrogen in sewage effluents is an effective, but expensive possi-
bility for reducing the loadings. This would, however, represent only a
partial solution. Recent estimates of nutrient sources by both Dr. Nixon
and MERL have concluded that the Blackstone and Pawtuxet Rivers contribute
more nitrogen, phosphorus and silica than the Field's Point, Bucklin Point
Ad Riversid -e treatment plants combined. Nutrients and organic matter
enter these rivers from point sources such as CSOs and treatment plants,
but they also drain large watersheds with non-point sources such as runoff.

Oxygen has been one of the pollution problems most successfully tackled in
other locations. In the estuary of the Thames River in England, for example,
data on oxygen conditions:in the estuary were combined with a computer pro-
gram to predict the benefits of various levels of sewage treatment. As a
result of stringent treatment of BOD at a few of the plants (important
because of large flows or their location in the estuary) and management to
maintain sufficient freshwater flow, conditions in the Thames have improved
to the point where fish, completely absent during the 1950s, have returned
to the river.29 Similar predictions should be possible for Upper Narragansett
Bay using Dr. Nixon's data and the circulation models developed by
Dr. Malcolm Spaulding of URI.

Volatile organic compounds: Recent URI surveys have identified the major
volatile organic compounds in Narragansett Bay. Field's Point is the prin-
ciple source.of chlorinated hydrocarbons and the Pawtuxet River is a major
source of aromatic compounds (Table 6). Concentrations are highest during
the winter. None of the levels exceeded EPA habitat criteria. EPA calculates
the level of carcinogenic compounds which may result in incremental cancer
risk for a lifetime exposure at 8various risk levels:, but does not make any
judgment on an acceptable risk. Maximum concentrations of tetrachloroethy-
lene in the Providence River and at Conimicut Point exceed the 10-7 risk
factor for consumption of shellfish. The Field's Point Plant is the major
source of this compound. A major problem in regulating volatile organic
compounds based on their effects on shellfish would be the lack of knowledge
regarding the extent to which organic compounds degrade the habitat for
shellfish.

Chlorine: Disinfection of effluents with chlorine provides a solution to
the problem of high coliforms which interefere with shellfishing, but also
has the potential to create new habitat problems. Rhode Island plants are
required to maintain total residual chlorine levels at 2 mg/l year round.
It has been assumed that effluents to the Providence River are probably
dispersed rapidy to levels low enough to avoid effects on marine shellfish,
but this assumption should be evaluated. The rivers may be even more sensi-
tive to chlorinated effluents. Concentrations have been calculated for low

TABLE .6.
Principle.Volatile Organic Compounds in Narragansett Bay

Major Sources Compounds

Field's Point Treatment Plant trichloroethylene

tetrachloroethylene

1,1 trichloroethane

ethyl benzene

Pawtuxet River orthochlorotoluene

chlorobenzene

toluene

ethylbenzene

from M. McGregor, personal c ommunication and Oviatt, 1981.1

flow river conditions (Table 7) which exceed EPA's recommended levels for
maintaining habitat. If CSO treatment facilities are built, they would con-
tribute additional chlorine to both freshwater and marine systems. Dechlori,na-
tion is an additional treatment which can be applied to effluents to remove
chlorine following disinfection. Without such a procedure it may be necessary
to make a trade off between the potential for fish in the river and access
to shellfish.

Fishery Management Questions

Fishery management objectives must be considered as well as pollution problems
in setting goals for shellfishing activity in the Upper Bay. One argument
against opening more territory or reducing closure time in the conditional
area is that the populations of quahogs in the areas closed due to pollution
may be an important source of seed currently maintaining the beds in the rest
of the bay. A study of quahog production in Green South Bay, Long Island,
suggests that the areas closed due to high coliform concentrations are acting
as a brood stock for the areas open to harvesting. Indirect evidence sug-
gests that a similar situation may exist in Narragansett Bay. Quahog
landings were high in Rhode Island in the 1950s and declined throughout the
1960s. Two to three years after closures began in the area s;bluth of Conimicut
Point (1969) young, high priced little neck qoahogs increased throughout the
Bay and landings began to rise. Since it takes two to three years for a
quahog to grow to harvestable size, the two events may be linked. If quahogs
in the closed area are serving as brood stock for the rest of the bay,
expanding the harvesting opportunities may decrease the overall availability
of the resource.

One management technique in practice in RI is transplanting quahogs. Fisher-
men are paid R, per pound to dig and move quahogs under state supervision
from the closed area to designated areas in the rest of the bay, which are
then opened the following winter. Depuration is a technique currently pro-
hibited, where private companies harvest quahogs from closed areas and treat
them in tanks to eliminate bacteria before sale. Shellfishermen vigorously
oppose such an option fearing this practice would give a few large operations
control of the market. From a health point of view, quahogs can cleanse them-
selves of bacteria in tendays at 50*F, but half the hydrocarbon content per-
sists for three months.32 After 30 days in clean water, quahogs from the
Providence River still had significantly higher levels of cadmium, copper,
nickel, lead, and titanium than quahogs initially from clean sites.
Differences in body content of silver and aluminum disappeared with 30 days
of depuration.33

Summary

Water quality necessary for shellfishing must be examined in terms of both
the requirements for harvesting and the requirements for a healthy habitat:
and the long term maintenance of the resource. The CSOs and Field's Point
treatment plant of the Providence sewage system are a major source of many
pollutants, but by no means the sole.source. The upgrading of the Providence
system should reduce BOD and coliforms, but the effect of the reduction will
depend on the relative importance of other source, such as rivers. Based
on present plans for facility improvement and construction, it would appear
that reducing the number of closure days is a reasonable goal if plans proceed

TABLE I
Calculated Chlorine Concentrations in the Pawtuxet, Woonasquatucket and
Blackstone Rivers

Treatment Plants Calculated Total
Discharging Residual Chlorine (ppb)

Pawtuxet West Warwick 520

Warwick

Cranston

Woonasquatucket Smithfield. 510

Blackstone Woonsocket 250

from "Draft EIS for Cranston Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities",
C.E. Maguire, October 18, 1976. 30

EPA recommended.maximum levels are 2 ppb for salmonid fish and 10 ppb for
other freshwater and marine organisms. 31

for treatina CSO overflows as well as treatment plant effluents. Complete
unconditional opening will probably remain impossible due to a small but
continual number of overflows per year. Opening the beds north of Conimicut
Point will require addressing the metal problem. Effects of hydrocarbons
and organics on the health of the resource need further evaluation, but
these pollutants also appear to constitute problems north of Conimicut Point.
ncreasing oxygen levels to improve habitat may require long-term strategies
to reduce nutrient loadings or may be as simple as completing the upgrading
of the Field's Point Plant. Effective depuration of metals and hydrocarbons
should be demonstrated before a more extensive program of transplanting is
considered. While more information should be gathered to determine the impor-
tance of quahogs in the closed areas as a brood stock, present implications
suggest that the shellfish resource levels throughout the bay.may benefit
from closures in the Upper Bay. Even if areas of shellfish beds remain closed
to harvest, for either water quality or fishery management reasons, reducing
pollutants to improve habitat conditions could benefit quahog production on
a baywide basis.

REFERENCES

1. Oviatt, C.A. 1981. Some aspects of water quality in and pollution
sources to the Providence River. Report for Region I, Environmental
0
Protection Agency, September 1979-September 1980. The Marine Eco-
systems Research Laboratory.

2. Anderson-Nichols and Company, Inc. and Waterman Engineering Company.
1977. Combined Sewer Management Report to the City of Providence,
R.I.

3. u.s. Food and Drug Administration. 1971. Proceedings of the 7th
National Shellfish Sanitation Workshop. October 20-22, 1971.

4. U.S.A.C.E. 1976. Fall River Harbor Improvement Dredging Project and
Fall River, Providence River Harbors Dredging Actions with Ocean
Disposal at Browns Ledge. Draft EIS.

5. Phelps, D.K..,.,G. Telek, R. Lapan. 1975. Assessment of Heavy Metal
Distribution in the Food Web. In: Marine Pollution and Waste
Disposal. Pearson and Franejipane, eds. (Pergamon Press, N.Y.)
pp- 341-348.

6. Jernigan, E., S.R. Piotrowicz. 1970. Trace elemental concentrations
in the marine life of Narragansett Bay in relation to pollution
(unpublished manuscript. 48 pp.).

7. Eisler, R., D.J. O'Neill and G.W. Thompson. 1978. 3rd Annotated
Bibliography on biological effects of metals in aquatic environments.
USEPA Ecological Research Series.

8. U.S. Environmental Protection.Agency. 1980. Water Quality Criteria
Documents; Availability. Federal Register 45 (231):79317-79379.
November 28, 1980.

9. Mukherji, P. 1979. Mercury in Narragansett Bay and Offshore. Coastal
Oceanography and Climatology News. 2(l):6-7.

10. Bender, M. 1977. Nutrient, oxygen and metal balance for Narragansett
Bay, R.I. Chemical oceanography class project, Graduate School of
Oceanography, URI.

11. Kester, D.R.@ 1981. Chemical Evaluation of the Hunt Chemical Effluent
in'the Seekonk River. Progress Report 13 April 1981.

12. Mills G.L. 1982. The chemical nature and geochemistry of dissolved
copper-organic complexes in the Narragansett Bay estuary. Ph.D.
Thesis, University of Rhode Island.

13. Calabrese, A., J.R. MacInnes, D.A. Nelson, and J.E. Miller. 1977.
Survival and growth of bivalve larvae under heavy-metal stress.
Marine Biol. 41:179-184.

14. Capuzzo, J.M. and J.J. Sasner, Jr. 1977. The effect of chromium on
filtration rates and metabolic activity of Mytilus edulis L. and
Mya arenaria L. In: F.J. Vernberg, A. Calabrese, F.P. Thurberg,
W.B. Vernberg (eds). Physiological responses of marine biota to
'pollutants (Academic Press, N.Y.). pp. 225-237.

15. Timourian, H.C. and C. Watchmaker. 1977. Assay of sperm motility to,
study the effects of metal ions. Biological imp lications of metals
in the environment. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Hanford
Sciencies Symposium Richland, Washington. H. Drucker. Tech. Info.
Center. ERDA.

16. Shutz, D.F. and K.K. Turekian. 1965. The investigation of the geo-
graphical and vertical distribution of several trace elements in
seawater using neutron activation analysis. Geochem. cosmochim.
Acta 29:259-313.

17. Eisler, R. 1977. Acute toxicity of selected heavy metals to the soft
shell clam Mya arenaria. Bull. Env. Contam. Tox. 17:137-145.

18. Black, G.A.P., D.J. Hinton, H.C. Johnston, and J.B. Sprague. 1976.
Annotated list of copper concentrations found harmful to aquatic
organisms. Fish. Mar. Serv. Tech. Report 603:44 pp.

19. Charles J. Krasnoff and Associates, Inc. 1982. Industrial Wastewater
Pretreatment Program. Pretreatment Limitations. January 28, 1982.

20. Olsen, S., M. Pilson, C. Oviatt, and J. Gearing. 1982. An Assessment
of the Ecological Consequences of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Estuaries.
Unpublished manuscript.

21. Farrington, J.W. and J.G. Quinn. 1973. Petroleum Hydrocarbons in
Narragansett Bay. Survey of Hydrocarbons in Sediments and Clams.
Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science, 1:71-9.

22. Hurtt, A.C. 1978. The Distribution of Hydrocarbons in Narragansett
Bay Sediment Cores. Masters Thesis. University of Rhode Island.
69 pp.

23. VanVleet, E.S. and J.G. Quinn. 1977. Input and Fate of Petroleum
Hydrocarbons Entering the Providence River and Upper Narragansett
Bay from Wastewater Effluents. Env. Sci. Tech., 11:1086-92.

24. VanVleet, E.S. and J. G. Quinn. 1978. Contribution of Chronic Petroleum
Inputs to Narragansett Bay and Rhode Island Sound Sediments. J.
Fish Res. Bd. Caft., 35:536-43.

27 -

25. Byrne, C.J. and J.A. Calder. 1977. Effect of the water-soluble frac-
tions of crude, refined and waste oils on the embryonic and larval
stages of the quahog clam Mercenaria.sp. Marine Biol. 40:225-231.

26. Hoffmann, E.J., G.L. Mills, J.S. Latimer, and J.G. Quinn. 1982.
Annual fluxes of petroleum hydrocarbons into a coastal estuary:
urban runoff and other sources.,. Presented at Ocean Sciences: AGU/
ASLO joint meeting, San Antonio, Texas. February 16-19, 1982.

27. Nixon, S.M. 1982. Dissolved oxygen dynamics and the assimilative
capacity of an urban estuary. Proposed to URI Sea Grant R/ES-19.

28. Olsen, S. and V. Lee. 1979. A summary and preliminary evaluation of
data pertaining to water quality of Upper Narragansett Bay. Coastal
Resources Center, URI.

29. Wood, Leslie. 1982. The Restoration of the Tidal Thames. Bristol:
Adam Hilger, Ltd., 202 pp.

30. C.E. Maguire. 1976. Draft EIS f or Cranston Wastewater Collection and
Treatment Facilities. October 18, 1976.

31. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1976. Quality Criteria for
Water.

32. Boehm, P.D. and J.G. Quinn. 1977. The persistance of chronically
accumulated hydrocarbons in the hard shell clam Mercenaria mercenaria.
Marine Biol. 44:227-233.

33. Phelps, D.K. and W.B. Galloway. 1980. A report on the Coastal Environ-
mental Assessment Stations (CE.AS) Program. Rapp. P.-v. Reun. Cons.
int. Mer. 179:76-81.

2. HOW IS WATER QUALITY RELATED TO FINFISHING OPPORTUNITIES IN THE UPPER
BAY, PROVIDENCE RIVER AND SEEKONK RIVER?

The Finfish Resource

A rich variety of fish are present in the Upper Bay. The Rhode Island Depart-
ment of Environmental Management has sampled fish every month at four loca-
tions in the Bay since 1969, capturing 46 different species. The four most
common species were winter flounder, scup, butterfish and sand flounder.1
There are no surveys north of Popasquash Point, but collections of fish from
screens at the New England Power stations north of the hurricane barrier
give us some information on the types of fish in the Providence River. Forty-
one different species have been found from 1975 to 1978 (Table 1).2 The most
abundant species is the Atlantic menhaden, a migrant fish present in the Bay
during the summer. Fish are reported by recreational fishermen as present
in the upper reaches of the Seekonk River (Table 2).3

The winter flounder is the most abundant bottom-living fish in Narragansett
Bay.1,4,5 Unfortunately, catch data on this and other species are reported
by National Marine Fisheries Service for landings at Rhode Island ports,
irrespective of where the-fish were caught. In 1978, commercial landings of
winter flounder in Rhode Island totaled 2,400 metric tons and were valued at
more than 2 million dollars.6 Thanks to a detailed survey of sportfish
in Rhode Island waters, we have a.good indication of this activity. In
7- 1978, sportfishermen made 1,285,000 trips in Rhode Island waters, spending
$7,133,000 to catch 5,843,000 fish of which 1/5 (760 metric tons) were winter
flounder.7 Thirty percent of the winter flounder caught by recreational
fishermen in Narragansett Bay were taken from the Upper Bay.

Adult winter flounder enter Narragansett Bay during the fall. In winter the y
move into shallow coves to spawn, after which they return to the Bay proper,
moving offshore by June. Their eggs are laid on the bottom and may remain
there for more than three weeks. The larvae are planktonic and spend
approximately four weeks in the water column before taking up the bottom
dwelling life of flatfishes. One or two years later, they join the migration
out of the Bay during the summer months.

The Upper Bay and the Providence River are recognized as important winter
flounder spawning and nursery grounds. During a recent EPA study, sexually
mature winter flounder were collected from the Providence River. Tagged fish
from this area were later captured by the commercial fishing fleet in the
southern portion of the bay. EPA divers have routinely observed juvenile
winter flounder at Sabin Point, Providence River.8 Larval collections suggest
the upper bay and Providence River are a significant source of winter flounder
larvae in Narragansett Bay.9

The Upper Bay has been closed to all bottom trawling for nearly 30 years, for
reasons unrelated to water quality. When the commercial fleet was allowed
to drag their nets in the upper Bay, numerous small flounder were killed
and there was concern by fisheries managers that this mortality was potentially
serious and extremely wasteful.10 For the past few years there has been
increasing pressure from some local fishermen to relax the closure in the

-2-

TABLE 1.
FINFISH IMPINGED ON SCREENS AT MANCHESTER AND SOUTH STREET STATIONS 1978-
1978.

Major species--accounting for more than 90 percent of the fish caught

Atlantic menhaden

Atlantic silverside

Silverhake

Mummichog

Winter flounder

Alewife

Weakfish

Striped killifish

Minor species

American eel Largemouth bass

Atlantic herring Little skate
Atlantic mackerel Lump fish
Atlantic moonfish Northern pipefish

Atlantic tomcod Northern searobin

Bay anchovy Rainbow smelt

Black sea bass Red hake

Blueback herring Smallmouth flounder
Bluefish Spotted hake

Bluegill Striped mullet

Blue runner Striped searobin
Butterfish Tautog
Chain pickerel Three spine stickleback
Crevalli jack White hake
Cunner White perch
Fourspot flounder Windowpane

Grubby

Source: Marine Research, Inc., 1978.

TABLE 2.
FIIH CAUGHT IN THE 1EEKONK RIVER

Bluefish

Carp

Large mouth bass

White perch

Yellow perch

Source: W. Parent, Parent's Marina

-4-

upper Bay, particularly during the summer and fall months. The R.I. Inshore
Draggermen's Association wants access to the stock of scup which move up into
the Upper Bay during this time. This is also the period when the Upper Bay
is an important winter flounder nursery area. The R.I. Marine Fisheries
Council has this proposal under consideration and is entertaining public
hearings on this matter.

There are numerous other species of fish in the Upper Bay. Amongthese are
striped bass, bluefish, weakfish, scup, menhaden, shad, American eel, tomcod,
and others. Some of these species support commercial and sportfisheries.
Almost all of the striped bass and nearly 40 percent of the bluefish caught
in the Bay by recreational fishermen come from the Upper Bay.7 Striped bass,
bluefish and weakfish are predators which feed on silversides, mummichogs and
menhaden. These smaller fish are attracted to the Upper Bay to feed on
abundant plankton blooms. Menhaden spawn in Narragansett Bay in the summer
and travel south along the Atlantic coast as far as Florida in the winter.
They support a large commercial fishery along the east coast, with the catch
in Narragansett Bay ranging from 15 to 23 million pounds in recent years.11

Water Quality Conc. rns

Oxygen: Sufficient oxygen is a major requirement for fish species. Fish
will generally avoid areas of low oxygen, but the more stationary species,
such as flounder may be killed. Oxygen depletion in the bottom waters of the
Providence River has been observed during the summer 12,13 and is believed to
have been responsible for mass mortalities of uahogs and flounder which EPA
10,14
and DEM have observed in the Providence River Oxygen levels typically
become more depleted near the bottom than at the water surface. Because of
this, pelagic fish may be able to migrate through the area in the surface
water when low oxygen levels may prevent bottom dwelling fish from surviving
and reproducing. This is believed to be the explanation for the presence of
fish at the power plants even when oxygen levels are low in the Providence
River during the summer.

Management programs in many locations have been successful in improving
oxygen conditions. Examples are the Potomac River and Thames River in
England, where models were developed of the oxygen conditions which were
used to predict the effect of proposed improvements and to allocate loadings.
Models of circulation, such as those developed by Malcolm Spaulding at URI,
could be combined with oxygen information, such as that which will be col-
lected this summer by Dr. Scott Nixon, to provide a similar analysis in
Narragansett Bay. Once the relative importance of sewage treatment plants,
rivers and CSOs as sources of oxygen depleting organic matter and nutrients
are determined and the mechanisms which result in low oxygen are explored,
then these models can be used to determine how much of a reduction in organic
loadings or nutrients will result in what levels of oxygen. With this infor-
mation logical strategies for improvement can be developed.

Hydrocarbons: Winter flounder eggs stripped from fish captured in the
Providence River have elevated levels of hydrocarbons, according to the
preliminary results of an EPA study.8 Runoff, sewage treatment plants and
combined sewer outfalls are the major sources of approximately 1800 tons of.

-5-

petroleum hydrocarbons entering the Bay each year-15 Recent estimates sug-
gest that approximately 200 metric tons or 10 percent is used crankcase
oil.16 Crankcase oil is known to be a potent fish mutagen,17 but it is
not known'whether significant mutation rates are occurring in Providence
River populations. Concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons in the sediment
of the Providence River and Upper Bay are 200 times higher than the levels
in Rhode Island Sound. Recent work at URI's Marine Ecosystem Research
Laboratory has suggested that hydrocarbon concentrations in the sediment
from Prud6nce Island north may have long term chronic.effects on organisms.
(See description in shellfish section). Experiments have shown that winter
flounder exposed to sediment contaminated with crude oil (2300 to 4500 ppm
have elevated mortalities and decreased feeding rates.18 Hydrocarbon concen-
trations exceed these le'vels in sediments near Fields Point (5400 to 5700
ppm),19, 20 but concentrations cannot be compared directly since the crude
oil used in the experiments may be more toxic than the hydrocarbons present
in the Ba @Y. ,

One of the difficulties in constructing a framework for planning hydrocarbon
reductions is the lack of federal guidelines or criteria on which standards
can be based. There are guidelines for some of the specific hydrocarbon
compounds in water, but there are none for the sediments, which is where most
of the hydrocarbons collect. Winter flounder may have a higher exposure to
hydrocarbons than fish which remain in the water column because they ingest
some sediment with their food as they forage along the bottom. Industrial
pretreatment and an aggressive waste oil recycling program have been identi-
fied as the most effective means of controlling hydrocarbon loadings.

Metals: Three metals exceed EPA guidelines for salt water habitat. Mercury
exceeds this guideline in the Upper Providence River and also exceeds the -
guideline for human consumption. Copper and nickel exceed.their guidelines
north of Conimicut Point (see shellfish chapter for maps). This data indi-
cates a degraded habitat north of Conimicut Point. There are no FDA limits
for metals in fish except-for mercury (1 ppm. in the edible portion). We are
unaware of any studies on mercury content of fish from the Providence
River. Eggs from winter flounder captured in the Providence River do have
elevated met-al contents.8

Many of the metals of concern enter the Upper Bay in the effluent from the
Field's Point Treatment, Plant. Sewage treatment plants are not designed to
to remove metals, although some settle out with particulates. The most
effective treatment can be provided at theindustrial source, before metals
are diluted in the sewer system. For this reason, a strong industrial pre-
treatment program would be the most effective means to reduce metal concentra-
tions and improve fish habitat.

Sublethal effects of metals are less well known for fish than for shellfish.
It is known that a mixture of metals, such as that found in Upper Narragansett
Bay is more toxic than the individual metals. For example, copper and zinc
mixtures are more toxic than the sum of their individual toxicities and both
21
copper and zinc increase cadmium toxicity. This implies that in the Provi-:
dence River, metal levels should be reduced below the individual EPA guide-
lines, which were derived for single metals. This might compensate for the
mixture of metals present in local waters.

-6-

PCBs: PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) are another contaminant found to be
elevated in Providence River winter flounder eggs. PCBs in surface sediment
near the Field's Point sewage treatment plant outfall and one mile downstream
are approximately 1,000 ppb 22 (as compared to levels less than 10 ppb in
Rhode Island Sound)23 Elevated PCBs-in fish eggs have been associated with
reduced hatching and survival in salmonid fish 24 and reproduction of
local species may be similarly affected. The Providence area appears to be
the major source of PCBs to Narragansett Bay, since sediment concentrations
are higher in the Providence River. Levels in sewage treatment plant sludge
were 10 times higher at Field's Point than any other Rhode Island plant.25
PCBs are not regarded as a major problem in Narragansett Bay, compared to
such areas as the Hudson River where levels in fish constitute a danger to
people consuming them.

Management Igsues

The minimum water quality classific. ation is SC, which is described as suit-
able for shellfish and wildlife habitat. Unlike shellfish, access to finfish
has been restricted for fishery management rather than water quality reasons.
In the absence of evidence,that pollutant levels in the fish are high enough
to affect people consuming them, the major water quality management question
in terms of fisheries is one of providing a healthy habitat for fish.

To establish a framer-7ork for such water quality management, the first ques-
tion which must beaddressed is "What are the qualities of a good habitat'
and where are areas where such conditions exist locate<1 in Narragansett Bay?"
Habitat can be differentiated into habitat for spawning, nursery grounds,
feeding, and migration, We do not now know the locations of important habi-
tat areas for the common species in Narragansett Bay. Dr. Richard Crawford
of the Coastal Resources Center..will be initiating a project this year that
should locate flounder spawning.'sites in the Providence River.

A second question is "In what a reas is the habitat degraded?" The EPA guide-
lines indicate that habitat is degraded north-of Conimicut Point. By comparing
growth rates of larvae from@the Providence River and Upper Bay with flounder
from Charlestown Pond, Dr. Crawford hopes to shed some light on the impact
of pollution in the Upper Bay on flounder larvae.

This study will greatly refine our knowledge of Upper Bay fishery habitat.
With our current knowledge, we have a basis for saying that metals are
degrading the habitat north of Conimicut Point and that summer oxygen levels
must be improved if the survival of bottom species is to be improved. While
all areas of the Bay are currently designated for habitat through the minimum
SC category, the water classification system is being revised by the state.
If areas are designated as specific types of fishery habitat in a special area
plan, water quality criteria can be developed for the purpose of protecting
those specific habitat requirements.

-7-

REFERENCES

1. Sisson, Richard T., Species diversity and changes with time in the finfish
population in Narragansett Bay, 1969-1977.

2. Marine Research, Incorporated. 1978. A fish entrapment survey at Manchester
Street and South Street Power Stations, Providence, Rhode Island.
Annual report, 1978, MRI, Falmouth, Mass.

3. William Parent, personal communication, 1982.

4. Oviatt, C.A. and S.W. Nixon, 1973. The demersal fish of Narragansett
Bay: An analysis of community structure, distribution and abundance.
Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science 1:361-378.
5. Jeffries: H.P. and W.C. Johnson. 1974. Seasonal distribution of bottom
fishes in the Narragansett Bay area: seven-year variation in the
abundance of winter flounder (Pseudopleuronectes americanus). J.
Fish. Res. Board Can. 31:1057-1066.

6. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management.

7. McConnell, K.E., T.P. Smith, and J.F. Farrell. 1981. Marine sportfishin g
in Rhode Island. NOAA/Sea Grant University of Rhode Island Technical
Report 83. 26 pp.

8. Diane Black, EPA, personal communication to.Richard Crawford, 1982.

9. Matthiessen, 1974 in Olsen, S. D. Robadue, and V. Lee. 1980. An inter-
pretive Atlas of Narragansett Bay. Coastal Resources Center, Univer-
sity of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI.

10. Richard Sisson, personal communication to Richard Crawford.

11. National Marine Fisheries Service, 1978. Fishery statistics of the
United States, Statistical Digests, U.S. Department of the Interior,
NMFS, Washington, DC.

12. Olsen, S. and V. Lee. 1979. A summary and preliminary evaluation of data
pertaining to the water quality of upper Narragansett Bay. Coastal
Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, R.I.
189 pp.

13. Oviatt, C. 1981. Some Aspects of Water Quality in and pollution sources
to the Providence River. The Marine Ecosystems Research Laboratory,
University of Rhode Island.

14. Donald Phelps, personal communication to Richard Crawford.

15.. Hof f man, E. J. , J. S. Latimer, and J. G. Quinn. 1982. Annual fluxes of
petroleum hydrocarbons to a coastal estuary: urban runoff and other
sources. Ocean Sciences: AGU/ASLO Joint Meeting, San Antonio,
Texas. February 16-19, 1982.

16. Hoffman, E.J., A.M. Falke, and J.G. Quinn. 1980. Waste lubricating oil
disposal practices in Providence, Rhode.Island: Coastal Zone MLgmt.
J. 8(4):337-348.

17. Payne, J.F., I. Martins, and A. Rahimtula. 1978. Crancase oils: Are
they a major burden in the'aquatic environmentZ@ Science 200:329-
330.

18. Fletcher, G.L., J.W. Kiceniuk and U;P. Williams. 19,81. Effects of oiled
sediments on mortality, feeding and growth of winter flounder
seudopleuronectes americanus.

19. Farrington, J.W. and J.G. Quinn. 1973. Petroleum Hydrocarbons in
Narragansett Bay. Survey of Hydrocarbons in Sediments and Clams.
Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science, 1:71-9.

20. VanVlee t, E.S. and J.G. Quinn. 1977. Input and Fate of Petroleum Hydro-
carbons entering the Providence River and Upper Narragansett Bay
from Wastewater Effluents. Env. Sci. Tech., 11:1086-92.
r, R. and G.R. Gar @@73. Acute toxicity to an estuarine teleost
21. Eis le dner. I
of mixtures of cadmium, copper and zinc. J. Fish@. Biol., 5:131-142.

22. Paulson, A.J. and D.T. Brown. 1978. PCBs: Theirlenvironmental signifi-
cance and distribution in Rhode Island. University of Rhode Island
Marine Technical Report #68.

23. Boehm, P.D. and J.G. Quinn. 1978. Benthic hydrocarbons of Rhode Island
Sound. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science, 6:471-94.

24. Zilko, V. and R.L. Saunders. -1979. Effect of PCBs and other organo
chloride compounds on the hatchability of Atlantic salmon (Salmo
salar) eggs. Bull. Envir. Contam. Toxic. 21:125-130.

25. Keyes Associates, 1978. Areawide sludge managementl inventory Phase
Report. Prepared for the "208" Areawide Water Quality Management
Planning Project, RI Statewide Planning Program.

3. IS WATER QUALITY INTERFERING WITH SWIMMING IN THE UPPER BAY OR THE
PROVIDENCE RIVER?

Upper Bay Beaches

Going to the beach" is one way many Rhode Islanders take advantage of life
in the Ocean State. There are more than 2 miles of beaches around the@
Upper Bay which are especially important because of their close proximity
to the state's population centers. State, local and private beaches are
shown in Figure 1, along with areas identified as sandy beaches and spits.
There are no large stretches of sandy beach north of Sabin Point. The '
Seekonk River has a mud bottom and generally a steeply sloping shoreline.
It is shallow and at low tide mud flats extend some distance out from the
shore. The upper Providence River is largely bulkheaded and the proximity
of industrial facilities makes it an unlikely choice for swimming.

Public Health Concerns

According to the current Rhode Island water quality classification, SA and
SB category waters,are acceptable for swimming and recreational use. SB
standards include a maximum concentration for total coliform bacteria of
700 MPN/100 ml (most probable number per 100 milliliters) and a fecal
coliform limit of 50 MPN/100 ml. Coliform bacteria live in the intestines
of warm blooded animals and are used to indicate the presence of fecal
material. They are not themselves harmful, but have been widely used as
a regulatory tool because of their ease of measurement.

The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) routinely
monitors coliform levels at Rhode Island beaches. They do not have the
legal authority to order a beach closed, but can post signs recommending
against swimming. This was done in 1979, the year that the entire Upper
Bay was closed to shellfishing on an emergency basis due to the poor con-
dition of the Field's Point sewage treatment plant.

The use of total and fecal coliform bacteria as indicators was developed
as a regulatory tool for shellfish closures. Recent studies have shown
that they may be as useful for determining water quality for swimming.
In an EPA study of swimmers at Coney Island and Rockaway Beaches, the
incidence of gastrointestinal symptoms was not related to total or fecal
coliform concentrations. It was found that fecal streptococci (also
called enterococci) and Escherichia coli (a specific type of coliform)
were better able to predict illness among swimmers.4

Gastroenteritis is the most common waterborne disease and is caused by
a virus which is probably highly infectious and highly concentrated in
sewage. A high rate of attack is associated with a low concentration
of enterococci. Densities of 10 per 100 ml represent a 1 percent attack
rate or about 10 cases per 100 swimmers.5

-2-
FIGURE 1..

P A%rT T
t

PR VIDENCE >

0 2mi.

EAST 0 1 2 3 km

PROVIDENCE

CRANSTON.

WARWI@K
50

BARRINGTO

WARREN

.%3
2 U p p e r
No rrog an sett B R I SIM L
F3 a y

Upper Narragansett Bay and Providence River Beaches

Sand beach and spit

From New England Basins Conmission, 1977; Rhode Island Statewide
Planning, 1976; Dr. J. Boothroyd, URI

-3-

TABLE 1.
Upper Narragansett Bay and Providence River Beaches

Beach To-@,m (h.:nership Length (miles)

1 Rockv Point Warwick Private 0.04

2 Highland Warwick Private 0.06

3 Bayside Warwick City 0.50

4 Conimicut Warwick City 0.20

5 Gaspee Point Warwick Private 0.08
6 Sabin @oint E. Providence City 0.15

7 Crescent Park E. Providence Private 0.11

8 Narragansett
Terrace Park E. Providence Private 0.10

9 Annawatnscott Barrington Town 0.02

10 Tillinghast
Farm Barrington Private 0.40

11 Barrington
Town Barrington Town 0.20

12 Beach Road Barrington Private 0.10

13 Meado wbrook Barrington Private 0.05

14 Barrington
Yacht Club Barrington Private 0.05

15 Warren Town Warren Town 0.05

16 Narragansett
Heights Bristol Private 0.02

17 Bristol Town Bristol Town 0.20

Total Public 1.32

Total Private 1.01

-4-

Enterococci were measured in the Upper Bay about three years ago, but
no studies have been done since the Fieldis Point Plant resumed effective
primary treatment. With effective disinfection at all the sewage plants,
the primary source of pathogens is probably the combined sewer overflows
and the rivers. Proposed plans for satellite treatment of combined sewer
overflows would provide disinfection for the Providence overflows, as de-
scribed in the shellfish chapter. Controversy surrounds this treatment
because of possible effects on fish and shellfish larvae. Unfortunately,
viruses such as the types which cause gastroenteritis are thought to be
more resistant to chlorination than colilorm bacteria, Thus hig h levels
of disinfection are required to reduce viruses.

Aesthetic considerations

The appearance of a beach may do more to determine its use than the actu-al
water qu@Llity. Debris on shore results from litter left by users and
floating material left by the tides. The sources of this floating material
are most likely litter from other parts of the Bay, rivers, combined sewer
overflows and storm drains. The relative importance of these sources is
unknown.

Another aesthetic consideration is odor. When oxygen is depleted, a dif-
ferent type of bacteria multiply in the sediment. Instead of oxygen,
they metabolize sulpher and produce foul smelling hydrogen sulfide gas.
Low oxygen is a problem in the Providence River during mid summer and
is described in more detail in the shellfish section. It is one aspect
of water quality which has been successfully managed through treatment
facilities and nutrient control in other locations. While we do not
currently have information necessary to apply state of the art techniques
to the Providence River, sampling being conducted this summer by Dr.
Nixon of URI should help make such management possible.

Water Quality Goals for Swimmin

A range of possible goals for swimming include the following:

1. Make swimming a high priority use in the Upper Bay and Providence
River. Expand access by creating sandy beaches and acquiring beach
areas currently in private ownership. Establish disinfection pol-
icies which will protect swimmers in all beach areas throughout the
Providence River.

2.- Maintain the use of current beach areas and encourage swimming in the
lower Providence River, but do not expand northward in the Upper
Providence River or Seekonk River. Tailor disinfection procedures
to protect swimmers south of Sabin Point.

3. Do not recommend swimming at beaches in the Providence River, concen-
trate on expanding access in the Upper Bay, and disinfect accordingly.

-5-

4. Provide alternate swimming opportunities which do not require swimming
quality water in the Providence River. Possibilities include public salt
water pools along the shore.

Potential conflicts which must be resolved center around the necessity to
disinfect effluents or accept a high gastroenteritis attack rate versus the
deleterious effects of disinfectants on fish and bivalve larvae.

REFERENCES

1. New England Basins Commission. 1977. Southeastern New England water
and related land resources study.

2. Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program and Department of Natural Resources,
1976. Plan for recreation, conservation and open space. Report No.
28.

3. Boothroyd, J. Shoreline types. p. 117-124 in Robadue, D. and V. Lee,
1980, Upper Narragansett Bay, An Urban Estuary in Transition.

4. Cabelli, V.J., 1977. "Indicators of Recreational Water Quality". p. 222-
238 in Bacterial Indicators/Health Hazards Associated With Water
American Society for Testing and Materials, A.W. Hoadley and B. J.
Dutka, eds.

5. Cabelli, V.J., A.P. Dufour, L.J. McCabe and M.A. Levin, 1982. Swimming
associated gastroenteritis and water quality. American Journal of
Epidemiology. 115:606-616.

4. HOW DOES WATER QUALITY LIMIT RECREATIONAL BOATING OPPORTUNITIES IN THE
UPPER BAY, PROVIDENCE OR 8EEKONK RIVER?

Recreational boating constitutes a major use of Narragansett Bay. Direct
access to the Upper Bay is provided by twenty-four marinas, yacht clubs and
boat clubs located in the sheltered coves of the Upper Bay and Providence
River and on the Seekonk (Figure 1 and Table 1). Boat launch ramps are
listed in Table 2.

The Upper Bay area has been identified as the area with the best potential
for marina and boating growth in the state.1 Problems which affect an ex-
pansion of boating activity include site acquisition,' site development,
conflicts with established uses such as industry and shipping, dredging
needs, water quality and shoreline debris. The industrial activity in the
Providence River does not preclude recreational boating. Boston, San
Francisco, Vancouver and many major port cities have boating facilities
interspersed with commercial shipping facilities.

A study conducted in 1974 catalogued 2,277,000 man-days of boating per year
in Rhode Island registered,boats with some form of power. While Rhode
Islanders were satisfied with their boating experience overall, the fol-
lowing statements were identified by owners of both power and sailboats
as indicating the most important factors detracting from boating enjoyment.2

1. Boating is getting too costly.

2. Water pollution messes up my boat.

3. Can't g o for a swim because of pollution.

4. Too many other boats.

Two of these issues relate to water quality.

Public Health Concerns

Public health concerns are a relatively minor issue in terms of protecting
recreational boaters. Class SC water is judged suitable for recreational
boating according to the state classification. There are no specific
numerical criteria for coliforms under this classification, although they
are limited to "none in such concentrations that would impair any usages
specifically assigned to this class." It can be argued that since the risk
to public health would be limited to people falling overboard, the presence
of human pathogens presents a low risk to boaters. However, when swimming
is combined with boating or when small, easily capsized sailboats or rowing
shells are in use, then the same public health concerns discussed in the
swimming chapter apply.

Recreational boating is not a totally benign use in terms of public health
or effects on the environment. A debate is raging over the disposal of
human wastes from marine toilets. Traditionally, recreational boats have
discharged sewage directly into the water. However, the federal government

-2-

FIGURE 1.

PA-N EI

T
PR I D E NC E
10 0 2mi.
9 i ---@ .
12 EAST 0 .1 2 3 km
13 PROVIDENCE

8
CRANSTON .10
7 ^
ji 0
2.
4
5 4p'T T
WARWICK 17
18

BARRIN,",TON
@0 9

RREN-
2
24

U p p e r
No rrog on sett B R I SlLO L
B y

MARINAS, YACHTCLUBS AND BOAT CLUBS

-3-
TABLE 1.

Marinas, Yacht Clubs and Boat Clubs in the Upper Bay and Providence River

Location Facility Slips Moorings
(1979)

Pawtuxet I Pettis Marina 16 9
2. Pawtuxet Athletic Club
3. Edgewood Marina 45
4. Pawtuxet Cove Marina 70
5. Pawtuxet Yacht Club 18

Edgewood 6. Rhode Island Yacht Club 13 7
7. Edgewood Yacht Club 56 25
8. Port Edgewood 120

Seekonk River S. Brown University Boathouse
10. Narragansett Boat Club
11. Parents Marina
12. Oyster House Marina 36
13. East Providence Boatyard

Bullocks Cove 14. Bullocks Point Marina 73
15.@ Narr@gansett Terrace Marina 25 30
16. Narragansett Terrace Boat Club
17. Cove Haven Marina 230
18. Lavin's Marina 150

Warren River 19. Stanley's Roatyard 220 57
20. Barrington Yacht Club 76 117
21. Striper Marina 116
22. Water Street Dock 16
23. Ressler's Marina 20 10
24. Sousa's Shellfish 30

Source: Collins and Sedgwick, 1979, Recreational Boating in Rhode Island's Coastal
Waters: A Look Forward. URI Marine Technical Report 75.

-4-

TABLE 2.
State and Municipally Owned Launching
Facilities in the Upper Bay

Location State Municipal

Barrington Haines Park

Bristol State Street
Cranston Colt Park Aborn Street

East Providence Bold Point
Sabin Point
Beach Road

Warwick Longmeadow Edgewater
Gaspee Cove
Conimicut Point

Source: Collins and Sedgwick, 1979. Recreational Boating in Rhode Island's
Coastal Waters: A-Look Forward. URI Marine Technical Report 75.

-5-

through the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA Section 312) is
attempting to change that by requiring that all vessels with permanently
installed toilets be equipped with one of three types of marine sanitation
devices. Types I and II treat the wastes through a combination of maceration
and chemical treatment. The treated wastes are then discharged into the
water. Type III devices do not discharge into the water and usually involve
a holding tank from which the wastes are removed at a shoreside pump-out
station.

The requirement for installing marine sanitation devices has been postponed
and cancellation of the requirement is being considered. There is disagree-
ment both as to the effectiveness of the designed toilets and to the need
'
for treatment of wastes from boats. Those who argue that waste need not be
treated usually cite the dilution provided by the large amount of water in
estuaries such as Narragansett Bay. Dilution is often insufficient, how-
ever, in the'small sheltered coves where marinas are located and where
boaters drop anchor. The chemical treatment toilets have been critized as
ineffective at disinfection and for adding chemicals to the water which may
be harmful themselves. Holding tanks prevent discharges completely but
there are only three pump-out facilities in Rhode Island (1979), one of
which is in the Upper Bay.at Stanley's Marina in Barrington.l.

The state water classification system recognizes the local impacts of marinas
by establishing the class of SAm. This class includes marinas and anchorages
where boats are docked or moored from June 1 to September 30. Shellfish
harvest (without depuration) is prohibited in these areas during the summer,
but permitted from October 1 through May 31.

Aesthetic considerations

Wa ter quality which is poor because of floating objects, litter or oil
interferes with a pleasurable boating experience. Litter is generated by
boaters themselves, by other waterfront users and in the Upper Bay may
result from combined sewer overflows or storm drains which are unscreened.
Floating litter is probably not sufficient in itself to prevent boaters
from frequenting an area if the location is attractive for other reasons.
A prime example is Newport Harbor, one of the most popular cruising stops
in the northeast, which is nonetheless plagued with litter and floating
debris.

Odor is another aesthetic consideration related to water quality. When
oxygen is depleted, bacteria which can survive in the sediment produce
hydrogen sulfide gas. Low oxygen concentrations occur in the Upper Bay
and especially in the Providence River during the summer. Data-is being
collected this year which will help to define the relative importance of
the various sources of the problem: organic matter and nutrients from
rivers, sewage treatment plants, CSOs, storm drains and runoff.

Management Issues

While water quality should not be ignored, the health of recreational
boating in the Upper Bay, Providence and Seekonk Rivers probably depends

-6-

more on a host of other factors. Lack of dock space and boat ramps, hazards
to navigation from submerged debris and a poor public image ofthe area are
probably more limiting than water quality. Expansion of many existing facili-
ties is limited inland by insufficient parking space and in the water by
dredging needs. Expansion may create conflicts between different types of
boaters, such as rowers and power boats. Creating a hospitable climate
for recreational boating will be aided by clean water, but that will by no
means be sufficient.

REFERENCES

1. Collins, C. and S. Sedgwick, 1979. Recreational Boating in Rhode Island's
Coastal Waters: A Look Forward. University of Rhode Island Marine
Technical Report #75.

2.. Rorholm, N., 1976. Boats and Their People: A Study of Rhode Island Boat
Owners. University of Rhode Island Technical Report #52.

A REVIEW OF THE CITY OF PROVIDENCE INDUSTRTAL
WASTEWATER PRETREATMENT PROGRAM PRETREATMENT
LIMITATIONS STUDY

PREPARED BY CHARLES KRASNOFF ASSOCIATE
S

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

Coastal Resources Center
University of Rhode Island
Graduate School of Oceanography
Narragansett, RI 02882
401-792-6224

A REVIEW OF THE CITY OF PROVIDENCE INDUSTRIAL
WASTEWATER PRETREATMENT PROGRAM PRETREATMENT
LIMITATIONS STUDY

PREPARED BY CHARLES KRASNOFF-ASSOCIATES

Prepared for the Citizen's Advisory Committee to the
Providence Water Pollution Abatement Program

Ellen Deason
Donald Robadue, Jr.

Coastal Resources Center
Graduate School of Oceanography
Narragansett, Rhode Island

March 1982

INTRODUCTION

The Proposed Pretreatment Program The City of Providence is required to

prepare an industrial pretreatment program as part of its obligation to meet

the 1983 federal requirements for treatment plants which discharge more than

5 million gallons per day and handle industrial waste. Charles Krasnoff

Associates was contracted by the City to meet this requirement by developing

an industrial wastewater pretreatment program by August 13, 1982. The purpose

of this report is to summarize the findings and conclusions of the study,

critically examine the logic and supporting evidence presented to justify

those conclusions and discuss the basic issues which must be resolved before

the proposed pretreatment program can be taken as a serious attempt to address

one of the major pollution concerns in Upper Narragansett Bay.

The objective of the pretreatment program is to 4stablish discharg@ con-

centration limits for individual firms which dump industrial pollutants such

as wastewater from metal finishing operations into the Providence sewer

system. It is based on three conce, rns:

protection of the treatment works

protection of the quality of the receiving waters

protection of the quality of sludge produced by the sewage treatment

plant to permit safe disposal

The industrial pretreatment study proposes maximum allowable discharge con-

centrations for nickel and copper. The nickel limit is-aimed at allowing-the

Inge Corporation to process and dispose of sludge from the reconstructed

Fields Point plant. The copper limit is aimed at lowering copper levels in

the Providence River to below EPA.chronic pollution levels. Oil and grease,

and ph limits are proposed which would protect plant processes.

-2

Goals of this Review The challenge which the Industrial Pretreatment Study

presents to the reader is twofold. First, it is important to understand how

the authors of the study reached their conclusions based upon the data and

analysis presented in the text. This was not an easy task for the-reviewers.

Secondly, it is crucial to examine the quality of the data, the accuracy

of computations and the reasonableness of the assumptions which are made

throughout the report. These were found lacking in many respects.

Our assessment is presented in three parts. The first is an analysis

of the route by which the conclusions are reached. We have identified key

premises, tables of data and critical assumptions. The second part con-

sists of more detailed assessments of the individual premises which comprise

the argument used to arrive at the proposed discharge limits, focusing on

major issues which require explanations or reexamination. The final section

contains broader comments on the scope and approach of the study as a whole

to the problem of industrial discharges into the Providence sewage system,

THE PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE.LIMITS

It is essential to understand just how the proposed limits for nickel

and copper concentrations were established in the study, and why standards for
no other metal, or petroleum hydrocarbons, were developed. A flow diagram of

the logic of the analysis was prepared and is presented in Figure 1. The

boxes represent a determination of a concentration of a metal in either the

waterbody, s Ilud-geIor treatment plant influent or effluent. The circles

represent crucial assumptions or operations which ate performed to get from

limits on metals in sludge or receiving water to limits on industrial dis-

charges. Question marks appear at points where the analysis presented in the

study was confusing or not fully discussed in the text.
The study calculated maximum allowable concentrations of metals which

could be allowed to enter the sewage treatment plant from three different

perspectives, and selected for each metal the strictest of the three concentra-

ow a Universal Eng
concentr t ii neers plalit
factor due to reconstruction
ilution with 65 mgd, 67
garbage at per day of
It udge

Maximul ximum x MUM
land appli- ludge Influent
Cation oneentrations concentrations
concentrations table 18) e low a Vto
(table 18) dilution of dis-
charge water to
total system
flow

r ve Choose th IndusLrial
median re- stricter Ischarge
moval effl- Influent ncentrations
ciencies of concentratio table 38)
7 STPS (table 36)
(table 22) nickel for
sludge;copper
for water
,quality

EPA chronic ximum
@Jfect Ilk effluent influent
water con- J A i -h.
oncentratioi
cenLrations qconcentrations table 35)
(table 30) (not s1lown)

lut o are
del f tota
(p.85-96 pollutant
b rden
able
Figure 1. Flow chart of logic for developing industr1a). dispharge'concentrations

tion, levels. For nickel, limits which would protect sludge quality were the
strictest, so a maximum plant influent level for nickel of .52 milligrams per,
liter was selected. For copper, limits which would reduce levels of copper in
the receiving water were the strictest resulting in a requirement for influent
of .95 milligrams per liter. N o metal limits were based on protection of the

plant alone.

As Figure 1 shows, the process of computing the maximum allowable con-

centrations; of metals ill-'theinfluent for protecting the quality of the sludge

began with the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management's sludge

concentration limitations for the land application of sewage sludge. Thebe

values were increased by 3.36 times due to the fact that the Inge process of

mixing sludge with garbage would in effect dilute the sludge. Therefore,

it could safely be more laden with metals. The maximurn allowable concentra-

tion of metals in sludge from the 'reconstructed treatment plant was computed

and shown in Table 18 of the study. The ma imum concentration of metals in
the influent of the treatment plant which would yield this allowable sludge

concentration was computed by assuming the design parameters of the rebuilt

plant currently proposed by Universal Engineers. Key assumptions are that an

average of 67 tons per day of dewateredsludged would be produced, average flow

would be 65 million gallons per day, and that theproposed plant design would

result in a performance exactly matching the EPA derived median removal.

efficiencies for sewage treatment plants (whose type or description are

not discussed in the report). Plant influent limits were also calculated for
landfilling and land disposal of sludge without Inge dilution (Table 23), but
these figures were;ignored in calculating industrial effluent limits.

The technique for computing maximum allowable concentrations based on

the quality of receiving waters was more complex and confusing. This analysis

began with EPA chronic effect concentration levels for receiving waters,

presented in Table 30. The study then presents a simple model of the fate

of a substance such as salt in a non-tidal water body, called a 'dilution'

model on pages 85 to 96 and Table 35. The quantities of metals released from

the plant in 1981,were run through the model to see if any reached levels

of concern- in any location. Since this is a dilution model,.the locus

of greatest concentration is at the outfall. In the case of copper and nickel, levels

of concern were found in the-computations. The study then assumes a

given contribution of the total metal load to the Providence River from

the treatment plant for each metal, and computes the maximum amount allowed

to be discharged from the outfall which would eliminate the violation of chronic
calculations
levels in the water. The result of these/ are not presented in the

report. However, maximum influent limits for water quality concerns are

presented in Table 35.

The next task which the study undertakes is to select final influent con-

centration limitations. This is done by choosing the stricter of the three

approaches to influent concentrations, and is presented in Table 36. As it

turns out, with the exception of copper, sludge protection is the most limiting

criteria. Nickel limits were selected as the only important problem in this

regard. Copper limits were selected as the only water quality criteria of con-

c.ern.

The final step was to allow forthe -assumption that the estimated 17

million gallons per day of industrial flow would be diluted by a factor of three

due to residential and commercial flow, and infiltration and inflow along with

seawater intrusion. Thus the maximum allowable industrial discharge concentra-

tion of copper and nickel were three times the strength which the study

found permissible in the water which reached the sewage treatment plant.

CRITIQUE OF KEY ASSUMPTIONS

The Industrial Pretreatment Study is very sensitive to variations in

several major assumptions. Many of these assumption are questionable. INfany
have
more pollutants should / discharge limits developed, including petroleum

hydrocarbons. The dilution effect of infiltration and inflow on industrial

discharges is very important yet not approached conservatively.

The EPA median removal efficiencies for

treatment plants play a key role in judging how well the.reconstructed plant

will do, although no discussion of the validity of these removal rates is sup-

plied. In the development of maximum influent concentrations permissable to
protect the sludge;@ heavy reliance is placed on the assumption that the Inge

process will be the chosen disposal option, despite the present dispute over

the cost effectiveness of that approach. The maximum influent concentrations

to protec t water quality are based on a confusing line of argument which relies

on a simplistic and inappropriate dilution model rather than an assessment of

available data about pollutants in the water, sediment and organisms of

Narragansett Bay to select priorities.

Restriction on the Number of Metals for Which Limits are Imposed

T e jewelry
h industry is currently operating at 40 percent capacity. There-

fore at full capacity, metal loadings could increase by 150 percent. Metals

such as zinc and cadmium, which Krasnoff calculations indicate are

currently present in concentrations near the sewage treatment plant influent

limits proposed by Krasnoff (Table 36) would very probably exceed those limits.

Since it is:in the interest of the industry to provide predictability in the

regulatory process, limits should be proposed at a minimum, for all metals

which could become a pr oblem under full industry operation. It would make even

more sense to propose limits for all metals. No action would be necessary by

industry for metals currently in compliance but guidance would be in place

in the event that new processes or industries generate higher concentrations

in the future.

Even if we can accept the assumptions and methods used in the report,

Krasnoff's own calculations (Table 36) imply that limits should be imposed

on cadmiumand zinc and possibly lead in addition to copper and nickel.

The limits proposed in the summary and conclusions are presumably based on
to the STP
future water use and elimination of tidal flow/(industrial water use = 24

percent) as opposed to current conditions (industrial water use = 27 percent)

used in CKA Table 38. If future water conditions are applicable, then cer-

tainly the metal concentrations generated under those conditions are also

applicable. Therefore, instead of establishing the need for limits by

comparing present concentrations (column H) to Krasnoffs- proposed criteria

(column G), the report should compare projected concentrations under future

water use (column I) to the criteria. When this is.done,cadmium and zinvare

also in violation. Since the Inge process will probably not be used, a

case can be made for comparing column I to column F, which considers sludge

without dilution. Under this comparison, lead would also be in violation.

The decision on what metals are to be limited should also be based on evidence

for current problems. Shellfish sampled at Conimicut Point contain chromium

in excess of proposed FDA alert.levels. Therefore, chromium should certainly

be subject to pretreatment limitations.

Lack of Attention to Petroleum Derivatives

Petroleum hydrocarbons and toxic organic chemicals should be considered

in the report. "Oil and grease" limits are proposed in the report
concern for the
based exclusively on/clogging of pipes. Effects on the receiving.water quality

are not mentioned. There is evidence that petroleum hydrocarbons are a

major problem in Narragansett Bay sediments and in the water column in the

Providence River. According to a budg et developed by Dr. Eva Hoffman,

approximately 47 percent of the oil inputs to the Upper Narragansett Bay water-

shed originate in Providence sewer.system. Dry weather CSO flows contribute

33 percent of the total and the Providence sewage treatment plant contributes

14 percent (other sources are: runoff, 36 percent; other sewage treatment

plants, 12 percent; direct industrial discharges, 4 percent; oil spills, 1

percent; and atmospher1c fallout, 1 percent.)

Industrial Flow Levels and Dilution Effect of Infiltration,Inflow The

study makes a key assumption which greatly affects the final discharge

concentration values. It is assumed that infiltration and inflow will compose

a constant 30 million gallons per day, or almost 50 percent of daily average

flow in design year 1983. This value represents the peak estimated inflow

value which would apply only under the wettest conditions rather than 17.9

million gallons per day which.Universal Engineers cites as a minimum value.

While is is appropriate for Universal to design the plant for this maximum

inflow rate it is questionable whether maximum dilution should be assumed

for industrial waste. Krasnoff's final recommended limits (p. 107-108)

seem to be based on the assumption that future conditions will provide even

greater dilution of industrial waste. The scenarios presented on p. 102

includes a reduction of 25 percent in industrial water use without any con-

servation by commercial or residential users. As a result of this approach
more concentrated
a much/ industrial discharge is permitted (see Table 1) In addition,

conversations with engineers knowledgable of the current project indicate

that even the minimum inflow/infiltration value may be exaggerated.

A broader problem is the lack of an industrial perspective. Industrial

water usage data, and information on typical firm discharges are not
CUSS4 and
supplied. Dis Aons of the future of-the metal finishing industries/ best

available treatment or reclamation practices which set the boundaries on

industry's ability to achieve reductions are absent. Salt water intrusion

is stated to be less than 3 million gallons per day, which may be unrealisti-

cally low based upon recent assessments of plant flow data and tide gate

problem An extensive analysis is made of the potential con-

tribution of a small number of industrial discharges who may shut down in

early July, stating that 3.8 mgd of -flow contributes

63 percent of the total load of all metals. However, the accuracy of flow
meter readings at the treatment facility may be much worse that'@' 3 mgd. No

Table 1. EFFECT OF WATER ASSUMPTIONS ON METAL LDUT CALCULATION

Flow using Flow using mini-mum
maximum infiltration infiltration and inflow
and inflow

Source of flow 1983 % flow 1983 % flow

Residential 7.92 12.9 7.92- 16.0

Commercial 6.64 10.8 6.64 13.4

Industrial 16.99 27.6 16.99 34.4

Infiltration 6
Inflow 29.90 48.7 17.90 36.2

TOTAL 61.45 49.95

% of flow Limit for 4-day
from industrial consecutive average
(mg/1)
Ni Cu

CKA proposed limits 27 1.9 3.3
Table 38

CKA proposed limits 24* 2.1 3.7
p. 107-108

limit based on 34.4 1.5 2.0
minimum infiltration
inflow**

2003 design flow minus 2.59 mgd tidal inflow and 25% industrial water use
conservation (p. 102). Use of 24% is presumably the reason the final recommenda-
tions differ from those calculated earlier.

Using CKA equation in Table 38.

Disadvantages: requires double handling of debris
cost allocation harder to determine
collection site must be located
less resistant to failure of project, i.e
nonpayment of hauling costs by owners,
or lack of management and oversight
collection sites may attract unwanted
garbage and-trash

d. Questions for discussion

(1) Which is cheapest?

(2) How can a fair allocation of hauling costs be made?

(3.)' Which is most resistant to failure?

(4) Wh ich siteswould be most effectively handled sep-
arately?

specific estimate is made of the number of workers actually out of work during

the period of comparison or the effect of the recession on the industry on flow

rates and output.

Median Removal Efficiency Assumption

EPA median removal efficiencies should not be assumed for the future

Providence sewage treatment plant without justification. If these medians

reflect data collected for new sewage treatment plants not yet treating

their entire design flow or for plants which do not receive metal loadings

as high as those in Providence, they could have little applicability to the

Providence Plant. Krasnoff has stated that since the plant's present

performance is often poor, current removal levels are lower.than those which

should occur under future conditions. EPA medians, Providence medians and

Providence ranges are compared in Table 2. Providence removal efficiency

for cyanide is better than the EPA median, but all other constituents were

removed at a lower median efficiency., With the exception of chromium and

mercury, Providence's median removal efficiencies were less than 40 percent

of the EPA medians.

It is also informative to consider the range of removal efficiencies.

A median by definition implies that half the values aregreater and half

lower. In the case of chromium, copper, zinc, and cadmium even the

maximum removal efficiency achieved by the Providence plant is lower than the

EPA median, indicating that even the best performance for 1980 through July

1981 was inferior to the prediction. With the exception of cyanide, there

were months of no removal or negative removal in every case. A spot check

of nickel removals for the las t 6 months of data available (Sept. 81- Feb. 82)

from DEM indicates one month with a positive removal (1.7 percent and five

months of zero or negative removal.

The use of EPA median removal efficiencies to back calculate from

permissible plant effluent limits to permissible influent limits in the

TABLE 2. COMPARISON OF EPA MEDIAN REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
AND THOSE ACHIEVED BY THE PROVIDENCE PLANT

EPA Providence Providence
median removal median removal range of removal
efficiencyl efficiency2 efficiencies2
% % %

Cr 75 43.9 50-77.0

Cu 82 31.2 138-77.5

CN 54 81.@ 8 11.6-97.0

Pb 55 19.8 0-75.0

Hg 55 431.4 - 250-77.0

Ni 32 5.3 - 116-59.4

Ag 81 22.7 - 50-89.5

Zn 80 26.7 -1200-76.3

Cd 90 20.0 100-66

1from CKA Table 22

2M
Lonthly samples from 1980 and Jan.-Aug. 1981, from CKA Tables 5 & 6

calculations performed by Krasnoff may seriously underestimate the metal

concentrations in sewage plant effluents, and hence in the receiving waters.

EPA median removal efficiencies are also used to modify the proportion of

total loadings to the Providence River from the Providence Plant (Table 35),

assuming that 80 percent are currently from that source (p. 97, no reference

given). - This'modified proportion of metal loadings is used in calculating

influent limits (Table 35).

Sludge Data and Handling Options

The recommended limitations are based on the assumption that metal

concentrations in the sludge will be diluted by the Inge composting process.

Since the Narragansett Bay Commission will not necessarily utilize this
method of sludge disposal, pretreatment limitations should be based@on levels

compatible with sludge treatment processes and disposal options being considered

by the Commission. The approach used to develop limits in the pretreatment

report is based on the assertion that sludge.concentrations of metals Will

be related to those in the STP influents. This is supported by correlations

developed in CKA Table 19.. Much data (presented in CKA Tables 5, 6 and 8)

is excluded from the table 19 calculation, with no reason given. If data

were excluded due to plant malfunction, one would assume that all metals would

be similarly affected on any one sample data. However, there is no date for

which all data is either included or excluded and much of the missing data

represents dates with low influent concentrat ions and high sludge concentra-

tions. When all the data is included in thelcalculations, the correlations

for copper, cadmium, and nickel become negative, indicating an inverse

relationship between metal concentrations in sludge and influent. Correla-

tion coefficients become low for all metals.: If sludge is recycled within

the plant to a varying degree dependent on production rates2 why would one

expect a correlation with influent concentrations?

Dilution Model and Development of Influent Standards Based on Water Quality

Plant influent limits based on water quality criteria are presented in

Table 35 for chromium, copper, nickel and zinc. Presumably limits are not

developed for other metals due to lack.of information on the proport 4on of

the total load due to the Field's Point sewage treatment plant.

The logic behind the equation used to calculate these limits (Table 35)

is not presented and is not clear. Plant effluent limits are not specifi-

cally calculated; the calculation in table 35 translates EPA chronic values

into plant influ ent levels in one step. In ad dition to the assumption

that EPA median removal efficiencies will apply to the reconstructed Providence

plant, the calculations are based on a projection of the proportion of the

-total metal loadings due-to the Providence plant and a salt dilution model.

Eighty percent of the total loadings of chromium, copper, nickel, and

zinc are attributed to the Field's Point plant (p. 97, no reference).

This percentage is then modified using the assumption that metals will be

removed at EPA median efficiencies to produce a lower, future percentage.

The eighty percent figure may be drawn from Table 29, which lists the

:major sources of trace metal inputs from wastewater discharges to Narragansett

Bay in 1977. Field's Point was responsible for from 73 to 87 percent of the

total municipal.input of copper, chromium, zinc and nickel. These numbers

represent, however, the proportion of inputs to the entire Narragansett Bay,

not merely the Pro@idence River as considered by the dilution model. Other

sewage treatment plants are listed as the major sources of lead and mercury

in 1977, but it should be noted that this does not exclude the Field's

Point plant as a major source, since no data was available for Field's Point.

It is also important to note that the Table 29 figures represent a propor-

tion of wastewater discharges only, not a proportion of the total loadings,

which would include CSOs and storm drains. There appears to be no basis

for restricting wa ter quality considerations to only four metals and the

projections to a proportion of future loadings appear unjustified.

The dilution model used to predict concentrations of metals in the

Providence River has many shortcomings. As such it is non-tidal, one

dimensional and limited to conservatively mixed substances.

The model ignores the effects of tides, which can move pollutants

upstream from the Field's Point outfall on a rising tide and back down-

stream to mix with new effluent on an ebb tide. Thus the water which

mixes with the effluent may already contain considerable concentrations

of metal s. As presented, the model assumes that the water available to

dilute the effluent contains. no metals at all. This would not be true

even in mid-ocean. The net result may be higher concentrations of metals

than predicted by the model, due to this concentrating affect of the tides.

The model.is one-dimensional and thus ignores the effects of stratifi-

cation of the water column - While most of Narragansett Bay is well mixed,

in the Providence River, fresh water from river input often layers on top

of more dense salt water. This lack of vertical mixingi-may result in

higher concentrations of pollutants at certain depths. If pollutants

enter with fresh water, they may be concentrated in the surface layer and

undiluted by the underlying.salt water. Thus the water concentrations

could be higher in surface waters and lower at depth than predicted by

the model. The model applies to "conservatively mixed" pollutants,

meaning those which are neither-added nor removed during the dilution.

The metals of interest as pollutants are not conservat ively mixed. A
rapidly
large amount disappears/from the water column and is incorporated into

the sediments. This implies that.the water concentration-S could be lower

than those predicted by the dilution model, but sediment concentrations

may be high.. Army Corps of Engineers data and other sampling indicate

elevated levels of many metals in upper bay sediments. Little information
det ermine when become harmful
is available to. concentrations of metals in sediment#, but a case

can be made that where the-metals are bound strongly to the sediment, they

are less harmful there than in the water column.

,High concentrations in. the sediment will affect the concentrations in

the overlying water. In experiments conducted at the URI Marine Ecosystems
in,large tanks
Research Laboratory (MERL), sediment from the upper bay was placed/with clean

water above it. Metals moved from these sediments into the water. This

implies, that even if all metals were removed from the Field's Point effluent,

the sediments would still act as a source of metals to the water. This

effect is small compared to current metal loadings, but is ignored in calcu-

lating metal concentrations which would result from reduced Field's Point

effluent.

It'may not be feasible at this time to use a circulation model to predict

metal concentrations in the Providence River, although Dr. Malcolm Spaulding

of URI is developing just such a model to predict coliform concentrations.
s

At a very minimum, however, the model equations should be modified to include
of
anbient metal concentrations; th Pse which could come out/the sedi-

ments, and if possible, those due to tidal concentration at the head of the

bay.

GENERAL COMMENTS

Without redoing the study ourselves, it is not possible to conclude

whether a particular discharge limit should be stricter or more lenient. Our
must assess
first concern is that a reasonable approach/be taken to/the problem, that the

study clearly state and justify all assumptions, utilize all of the available

data on the metal and petroleum hydrocarbon polltition problem in Narragansett'

Bay, and make consistently conservative judgments in establishing discharge

limits. We also recommend that a complete narrative accompany each step in

the analysis, since the report proved to be incomprehensible in several places

even for patient and experienced professionals.

A number of questions are raised by what fails to appear in the study.

Virtually no description of the metalfinishing industry is provided, including

its employment levels, economic problems and particularly its technical

capability to reduce discharges. The reader is left with no idea whether most

or all firms presently meet the discharge concentration levels, and whether

a two or three-fold improvement in pollutant reduction could be achieved at

an acceptable cost. Serious consideration deserves to be given to the concept

that industry achieve 'best practicable' control levels, which might bring
ambient water concentrations well below chronic for just a'few dollars more.

In sum, riany of the numbers currently incorporated in the calculation of

industrial effluent limits represent factors which may be expected to vary even

under ideal plant operating conditions. For instance, treatment variations

will generate varying removal efficiencies; varying water use and infiltration/

inflow will create different degrees of dilution in the sewer lines; changing

industry economics will generate varying levels of production. At present,

all of these are factored into the calculations at the most favorable levels

possible in terms of producing an effluent with low metal concentrations:

high metal removal efficiency at the plant, low industrial water use and

high infiltration/inflow, and low industrial production. In addition to these

variations, metal toxicities also vary drastically both due to synergistic and

antagonistic effects and parameters such as pH. Although synergistic effects

are discussed in section IV. they are not considered in setting limits.

Metal limitations should be prepared in a way which acknowledges the

range of these variations and clearly delineates how each is incorporated into

the recommended limits. The current approach certainly leaves no margin

for error for variation which is bound to occur.

INDEX TO DEBRIS REMOVAL INFORYATION

1. Debris Removal in Unver Narragansett Say . . . . . 1

2. Mao of Dehris Sources in Providence Harbor . . . . 8

3. a. Proposed Debris Removal Program . . . . . . . 12

b. Proposed Letter to-Debris Owners . . . . . . . 13

C. Description of Individual Debris Reports . . . 16

d. Draft Site Analysis Report Outline . . . . . . 17

e. Draft Certificate of Compliance . . . . . . . 18

4. A Volunteer Effort to Remove Loose Onshore

Debris in the Upper Narragansett Bay . . . . . . . 19

DEBRIS REMOVAL IN UPPER NARRAGANSETT BAY

Introduction

one of the legacies of port development in this century is the
presence of a large amount of floating and shoreline debris.
Dilapidated wharves and piers, some abandoned, others damaged
by hurricanes, are the main sources of this debris. Abandoned
and wrecked barges-,and scows also contribute to this problem.
Shoreline debris is a hazard to navigation, detracts from the
visual quality of the shore and water, and restricts commercial
redevelopment of the urban waterfront. Debris removal is widely
recognized as beneficial to both the public and private sectors.

The New England Division of the Army Corps of Engineers com-
pleted a draft feasibility report on debris removal in Providence
Harbor in-1978 as part of its program to implement responsibili-
ties under the 1889 Rivers and Harbors Act. The present program
was authorized by Section 202, of PL 94-387, the Water Resource
Development Act of 1976. However, the Corps New York division
is already in the midst of an active debris removal project at
present. A look at that project provides some idea of how the
Providence project would operate when it is finally undertaken.

Since 1915 the Army Corps of Engineers has been collecting
floatable debris from the waters of New York Harbor. In 1974,
a report was submitted by the Corps to the Department of the
Army that showed the need for attacking the problem of floating
debris at its source: the dilapidated wharves and piers around
the harbor. The program was approved by the Army and funded by
Congress in 1975.

The cost-sharing scheme in the New York project is 2/3 federal,
1/3 non-federal, and all debris sources are eligible for federal
cost-sharing funds. This includes debris sources for which
owners can be identified.

The Corps of Engineers' role in the New York project is that
of an administrator, as it would be in a Providence Harbor
project. When non-federal money is raised for removal of
debris sources (this money comes from both public and private
sources), the Corps matches it with the federal funds which
have been appropriated by Congress. The Corps then solicits
bids for the work from private contractors, and monitors the
work as it.progresses.

According to the New York division of the Corps, approximately
20 percent of the total debris sources have been removed so
far. The total cost of the project is estimated at $90 million
for the 750 miles of shoreline in New York Harbor.

Another'debris removal program is in the approval stage, con-
cerning Boston Harbor. A final feasibility report was completed
for Boston by the Corps in 1979, and revised in 1980. It is
being reviewed by the Department of the Army before being sub-
mitted to Congress for authorization and funding.

The major difference between the New York project and the Boston
and Providence projects is the cost-sharing arrangement. All
debris sources are eligible for federal cost sharing funds in
New York; in Boston and Providence, the cost sharing will apply
only to sources of debris for which the owner can't be identified.
Non-federal interests will have to recover the costs of removing
debris sources for which the owner can be identified. Governor
King of Massachusetts supports the Boston debris-removal project,
but is seeking legislation to change the cost-sharing arrangement
so as to reduce the State's share of the costs.

Status of Providence River Project

The Providence River and Harbor and Seekonk River Debris Study,
as the feasibility report is entitled, is still in the draft
stage. Work to complete the study is scheduled to resume in
October, 1981. The most recent draft report was completed in
January of 1978. Using the information from the 1978 draft,
approximately 25 percent of the total projects costs of
$4,857,364 will be borne by the federal government under the
present cost-sharing scheme (Table 1). This represents $1.2
million against a non-federal s-hare of $3.6 million. Fifty-
eight percent of the non-federal share or $2.7 million would
possibly be recovered from private property owners. Table
. 2 shows total volume and 1978 costs for each municipality
in the study area.

The Corps draft report proposes several alternative plans for
removal and disposal of the debris. Based on benefit-cost

Entire Study Providence Harbor
Area and River
(dollars) (dollars)

Federal Share 1,225,312 871,243

Non-Federal Share:

Recoverable 2,687,785 2,117,711

Non-Recoverable 944,266 684,364

Total Non-Federal 3,632,051 2,802,075
Share

TOTAL $4,857,364 $3,673,319

Table 1:Estimated 1981 Cost for Debris Removal in@
Upper Narragansett Bay and Providence Harbor.
(Estimated from 1978 Figures developed by New
England Division, Army Corps of Engineers)

-Percent of Debris Eligible
Eligible Debris Total Debris for Federal Cost Sharing

3 - 3
Barrington 2,033 ft 4,694 ft 43%
$9,879 $26,041 40%
East Prov. 113,303' ft3 256,647 ft3 44%
$436,483 $1,005,625 43%
Pawtucket 210 ft3 12,886 ft3 2%
$1,061 $73,608 1%

Providence 156,328 ft3 376,946 ft3 41%
$628,690 $1,498,048 42%
Cranston 22,732 ft3 29,342 ft3 77%
$92,269 $122,206 75%
Warwick 10,764 ft3 14,108 ft3 76%
$44,558 $62,439 71%

3 3
TOTAI. VOLUME 305,370 ft 694,623 ft

TOTAL COST $1,212,940 $3,787,967

Table 2:Proportion of Debris Eligible for Federal
Cost Sbaring in Upper Bay Communities.
Source: 1978 Corps of Engineers Study

ratios, evaluation'of negative impacts, and on the feasibility
of each plan's disposal methods, a single proposal was chosen
as the best way to proceed. This plan calls for a one-time
effort to clear the Providence River and Harbor of all floating
debris, and barging the collected debris to a staging area at
Field's Point in Providence. There it will be reduced in size,
trucked to a landfill site inJohnston and buried.

The plan also calls for repair of partially dilapidated structures
still in use and the erection of retaining fences along shorelines
in front of shorefront dumps. This one-time cleanup could be ac-
complished in a two-year period, according to the Corps of
Engineers. Changing conditions, such as the change in ownership
status of the Johnston landfill site,"could cause the Corps to
-alter this plan, or to select another plan as the best way to
proceed,

Map 4 shows the Providence Harbor and River debris sources based
on Army Corps survey maps. It is accompanied with a debris
sources information key. The type of debris varies, from bulk-
heads to bridge fenders. The most common source of debris are
dilapidated wharf s!tructures. The total volume of debris in
these sources noted is 300,330 cubic feet.

An Upper Narragansett Bay Debris Removal Program

The New England Division of the Army Corps. of Engineers (COE)
expects to complete the Providence Harbor debris study during
Fiscal Year 1982, which begins in October,. 1981. The report
will then be sent to the Secretary of the Army for review
prior to submittal to Congress for authorization and funding.
The availability of federal funds will depend on local support
in addition to the mood of Congress. The groundwork for build-
ing support should begin now, with a debris removal program
based.upon several initiatives:

1) state and local support and encouragement for the
completion of the Corps of Engineers study.

2) support and assistance to a citizen-based shoreline
debris clean-up in.selected areas.

3) contacts with shorefront debris owners to encourage
voluntary clean-up, in conjunction with a citizen
effort in order to reduce debris inventory.

The Army Corps of Engineers has already been appraised of Rhode
Island's interest in the completion of the debris study, through
freauent contacts and cooperation with Coastal Resources Center
sta@f. The OE and also participation in a meeting s Iponsored by

6
the Coastal Resources Management Council entitled 'Providence
Harbor: Problems and Prospects" on May 5, 1981, at which the
debris removal problem was discussed at length.

An updated photographic inventory of debris sources in Provi-
d&nce Harbor undertaken by CRC during April 1981 was made
available to the Corps of Engineers. Frequent reports will
be made to the Coastal Resources Management Council and the
public on the progress of the final phase of the COE Debris
Study.

During June, 1981, four members of the 443 Civil Affairs
Company of the Army Reserve began an analysis of the feasi-
bility of a citizen volunteer effort to clean up loose
shoreline debris in selected areas along the Upper Narragansett
Bay shoreline. The unit was previously involved in Project
ZAP, a massive one-day volunteer clean-up effort along the
Blackstone in 1972. A volunteer clean-up effort would serve
several purposes. First, a great deal of debris could be
removed from specific areas such as beaches and coves, greatly
improving their appearance. This would also reduce the in-
ventory of Upper Na ,rragansett Bay debris, and the money needed
to remove it. Finally, the effort would heighten public
awareness and interest in the debris removal problem.

The success of the debris removal project as proposed by the
Army Corps of Engineers would be greatly enhanced in cooperation
of the firms and landowners whose properties are debris sources.
As Table 4-1 indicates, a 55 percent of total project costs
are attributable to debris sources which have identifiable

owners.

The Coastal Resources Management Program, adopted in 1977,
established policy and regulations specifically prohibiting
the abandonment of vessels, piers and wharves in the state
navigable waters (section 520.1-2 (c) (page 180). A 1979
amendment to Section 46-6-8 of the General Laws of Rhode Island
empowered the Department of Environmental Management to seek
removal of such obstructions.

The utilization of these powers on a case by case basis for
literally hundreds of debris owners would be costly and likely
to foster resistance rather than cooperation. However, the
State of Rhode Island can use its authorities to become
directly involved in reducing the debris inventory through
working with debris owners in the overall context of a debris
removal program which includes the COE study and a volunteer
clean-up effort.

The Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Program's Upper
Narragansett Bay task has provided funds during the past two
years which have made possible a detailed analysis of the
debris problem. Working with the Urban Waterfront Subcommittee
of the Coastal Resources Management Council, CRC staff has
explored options for getting some movement in debris removal.
During the 1981-1982 fiscal year, CRC will be vroviding staff
time in support of a volunteer clean-up project and efforts
to encourage debris owners to remove or repair their
facilities. This work will be part of its assignment to
prepare a special area plan for Providence Harbor. The Army
Reserve will complete its initial assessment of the best way
to organize, encourage and support a volunteer debris clean-
up effort which may be scheduled for the Spring of 1982.

Debris Sources in Providence Harbor
0 structure in good condition

A Partially dilapidated

Completely dilapidated

Wrecked vessel

Lcose shoreline debris

Shorefront dump

Source: U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers Providence River and Harbor and
Seekonk River Debris Study. Feasibility Report. Nsi England
Division Corps of Engineers. 1978.

27
0 JR

.190
14

220

IL
197
220
M
230
zos Z09

48 212
v

222
'71
71

DEBRIS SOURCES INFORMATION KEY

PROVIDENCE HARBOR

Total Volume Total Removal
Structure to remove Cost (1970.) Type of
Number (cu. ft) (dollars) Debris Notes

102 2,100 7,235 wharf
*103 - - Mobil wharf
104 11755 6,406 wharf -
105 208 21004 wharf -
106 170 1,122 wharf -
107. 50 ill tree stump -
*108 -
*109 - -
110 227 1,683 bulkhead
ill 13,868 44,543 wharf Old Arco Dock
*112 - - Amoco Dock
*113 - - Gulf Oil Co.
114 420 1,506 dolphins
115 34,500 153,474 bulkhead On or near
Wilkesbarre Pi
116 8160 3,194 wharf Just south of
Bold Point
117 22,000 80,795 wharf
118 1,358 4,825 wharf
119 240 1,778 marine Just West of
railway Bold Point

120 1,400 5,192 wharf
121 11100 4,351 wharf
*122

*171
*172
*173
1.74 9,800 36,861 wharf India Pt.
175 9,800 34,270 wharf India Pt.
176 3,960 13,382 wharf India Pt.
*177: - -
178 8,700 29,625 wharf India Pt. Park
179 14,200 46,662 wharf India Pt. Park
180 430 2,518 wharf
181 3,900' 12,748 wharf
*182 - -
*183 -
184 8,200 37,615 wharf
185 170. 870 wharf
186 4,800 20,282 wharf
187 700 3,728 bridge fenders
*188 - -
*189 - -
190 270 1,072 wharf
191 90 357 bulkhead
192 50 199 bulkhead
193 20 79 bulkhead
*194 -

-continued-

DEBRIS SOURCES INFORMATION KEY
PROVIDENCE HARBOR

Total Volume Total Removal
Structure to remove Cost (1978) Type of
Number (cu. Ft.) (dollars) Debris- Notes

*195
*196 - -
197 15,705 60,805 wharf Narr. Electric
*198 - - Narr. Electric
199 2,020 4,177 wharf Narr. Electric
200 10,750 41,871 wharf
*201 - -
202 44,600 173,045 wharf C.H. Sprague
203 50 198 wharf C.H. Sprague
*204 - -
205 1,290 8,419 wharf
206 100 741 channel trough
*207 - - -
208 4,760 18,302 wharf 50,673 Repair cos
209 2,930 42,538 wharf 42,538 Repair cos
210 3,510 19,119 wharf 42,159 Repair cos
211 40,650 156,460 wha-rf
212 7,650 30,776 wharf -
213 16,599 78,715 marine railway
*214 - - Harbor Junct.
215 80 410 bulkhead
216 290 1,151 wharf
*217 - - -
*218 - - -
*219 - - -
*220 - - - Municipal wharf
221 50 199 wharf
*222 - -
*223 -
*227 - - Port Edgewood
228 829 3,352 wharf
*229 - -
230 70 358 bulkhead
231 25 100 bulkhead
*232 - -
234 1,242 6,091 wharf
235 770 3,3-39 wharf
239 840 31443 wharf
*240 - -
*241
*242 - -
243 234 894 wharf

These structures are in use and not in need of repair.

3.a. PROPOSED DEBRIS PV-40VAL PROCRAIM

To: Jim Beattie, Division of Coastal Resources
John Lyons, Coastal Resources@Management Council
Dawn Giles, Department of Environmental Management
From: Donald Robadue, Coastal Resources Center
Re: Debris Removal Program Procedures
Date: 6 August 1981

Purpose of Debris Certification

Thes following proposed certification process would serve several purposes.
First, it would provide accurate information on the nature and extent of
the shoreline debris located on a.particular parcel. The quantity would
be estimated@to determine eligibility for reduced or waived disposal fee,
as well as measure progr.@ss on the removal effort. At the site inspection,
recommendations on the best removal practice would be made, including
cost saving measures. The follow up inspection would assure compliance
prior to the disposal discount being offered.

Suggested Procedure

The basic steps in the certification program would be:
o Notification of debris owners of the goals of the removal program
(see attachment) requirements of present law, and potential
benefits and incentives for compliance

o Receipt of initial inquiries from owners

o Division of Coastal Resources staff site inspection to identify location,
type and amount of debris on, site, recommend removal technique,
and prepare Site Analysis Report (see attachment)
o Action by debris owner,including disposal at State facility along with
dacumentation provided in site analysis report -

o Reinspection of site to confirm compliance, issuance of Certificate
of Compliance (see attachment) and notification of SWMC to provide
fee discount/waiver.

0
Public recognition , if desired by certificate recipient.

The attachments are only intended to be rough drafts for refinement by the
iate officials. In addition, clarification of the billing procedure
appropr
used by the SWMC is necessary in order to assure a smooth flow of paper work
without confusion over compliance.

P.S. Some of the detail in the letter could be placed in the informational
brochure once those details are settled.

D R A F T

3.b.Letter to Debris Owners

Date:

NAME:

Dear

One of the legacies of the urbanization of Upper Narragansett Bay in

this century is the accumulation of a large amount of shoreline debris.

Dilapidated wharves and piers, abandoned and wrecked vessels, shorefront

dumps and loose shoreline debris constitute a hazard to navigation, de-

tracts from the visual quality of the Upper Bay and adversely affects the

value and redevelopment potent ial of waterfront property.

The Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council and the Department

of Environmental Management are cooperating in a three element program to

remove debris from the Upper Narragansett Bay shoreline. This program in-

cludes:

o Assisting the Army Corps of Engineers in its completion of a debris
removal project plan begun in 1978. Approval by the Secretary of
the Army is essential in order for Congressional appropriation of
the federal share of costs.

0 Sponsoring a volunteer citizen shoreline clean-up in selected
areas scheduled for May 1982.

o Encouraging private owners of debris sources to repair or remove
them.

Pa-e Two 14

In 1977 the Coastal Resources Management Council adopted a comprehensive

coastal mana-ement program which includes a prohibition of the abandonment

of vessels and marine structures (Section 520.1-2 c) In 1979 the General

Assembly provided the Department of.Environmental Management with the specific

authority to enforce state policies pertaining to the abandonment of vessels

and the accumulation of shore line debris.

According to the 1978 Army Corps of Engineers Study, recently updated by the

URI Coastal Resources Center, only thirty firms or individuals own 88 per cent

of the tottal amount of debris attributable to shorefront structures in Upper

Narragansett Bay. The property you own has been identified as the location

of a structure which is classified as either a partly or completely dilapidated

debris source. I am requesting your participation in a voluntary program to

assist debris owners in removing their property from the inventory,of debris

sources. This will not only lead to immediate improvements in shoreline

appearance and harbor safety, but will greatly reduce the burden of clean-up

costs which otherwise mus.t be borne by the tax paying public.

Several incentives are being offered to voluntary program participants:

o A site inspection to determine the need for repair of removal, and
recommended options which will include cost minimizing measures

o A (waiver/reduction) of the disposal fee charged at the landfill
operated by the Rhode Island Solid Waste Management Corporation
has been arranged for certified program participants

o Public recognition through the award of a certificate and press
releases

To obtain more information on the debris removal probram and arrange for a

site analysis, please contact:

John Lyons, Chairman
Coastal Resources Management Council
60 Davis Street
Providence Rhode Island 02908
(401)277-2476

Page Three

Your cooperation is greatly appreciated by all Rhode Islanders who care

about the future.of Narragansett Bay.

Sincerely

3.c.Description of Individua.1 Dehris Renorts

Dear

The following debris report consists of:

1) A listing of shorefront structures, located on property owned
by you or your firm, which are sources of debris;

2) One or more maps showing the location of the structures;

3) Photographs of the structures where available.

The identification of structures as sources of debris, and the estimation
of volume of material and cost of removal was done by the U.S. Army Corp
of Engineers. This information was included in their draft feasibility
report, Providence River and Harbor and Seekonk River Debris Study, written
in 1978.

The Coastal Resources Center at the University of Rhode Island identified
the owners of property on which the structures are located by examining
maps
and records in assessors' offices in the cities around Providence
Harbor. The location of structures in relation to the property lines
was verified by site visits, and inspection of ariel photographs and maps.

The Coastal Resources Center also made,an attempt to update the cost
estimates for the removal of the structures. This was done by using the
Construction Cost Index published in Engineering News Record. The cost
estimated cited in the following debris reports are based on the March
1981 index.

Since the Corp of Engineers' survey was done a number of years ago, the
condition of the shorefront structures today may be different from what
the debris study describes. The figures cited here should be taken as
rough estimates of what it would cost today to remove the debris found
by the Corp in 1978.

The Coastal Resources Management Council would like your cooperation in
scheduling a site inspection by our staff engineers. In this way we
could determine more accurately the location, size and nature of the
debris sources. Discrepancies between your information about these struc-
tures and ours could be resolved, and your role (as owner of the debris
source), in alleviating the problem would be clarified.

We are looking forward to working with you in solving the debris problem
in Providence Harbor.

Sincerely,

3.d.. Draft Site Analysis Report Outline

State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations

Department of Environmental Management Coastal Resources Management
Division of Coastal Resources Council

60 Davis Street
Providence RI

File Number Date

SITE ANALYSIS REPORT

UPPER NARRAGANSETT BAY DEBRIS REMOVAL PROGRAM

Name and address of debris owner:

Debris source location:

street and -iumber pole number
city/town
plaL number lot number
Army Corps of Engineers survey number

TYPE OF DEBRIS

DESCRIPTION (locate on lot)

ESTIMATED VOLUME AND WEIGHT

RECOMMENDED REMOVAL, REPATIK OR RESTORATION TECHNIQUE
Photographs, comments

inspector name:

I.e. Draft Certificate of Compliance

State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations

Department of Environmental Management Coastal Resources Management Council
Division of Coastal Resources

60 Davis Street
Providence, RI

File number Date

Army Corps Of Engineers Survey Number
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

UPPER NARRAGANSETT BAY DEBRIS REMOVEL PROGRAM

This document certifies that: (name,address of owner) has
complied with Section 520.1-2(c) of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources
Management Program and Section 46-6-8 of the Ceneral Laws of Rhode Island
by removing located at (street and number,
municipality, ) on (pla.L, and lot numbers) as determ ined by a
site inspection on (date) conducted by ( name of inspector).

The certifica te recipient is eligible for a (reduction/waiver) of the
fee customarily charged for disposal of materials at the (proper name
of Johnston landfill) as well as public recognition for cooperatian
with the Upper Narragansett Bay Debris Removal Program.

Signatures

4. A Volunteer Effort to Remove Loose Onshore Debris
in Upper Narragansett Bay

A VOLUNTEER EFFORT

TO REMOVE

LOOSE ON-SHORE DEBRIS

IN THE

UPPER NARAGASETT BAY

A FEASIBILITY STUDY

443rd CIVIL AFFAIRS COMPANY

U.S. ARMY RESERVE

WARWICK, R.I.

Introduction

The Coastal Resources Center wrote to the Commanding General of the 94th
U.S. Army Reserve Command in January 1981 requesting the support of that command
for a debris removal effort in Upper Narragansett Bay. This request was
forwarded to the 443rd Civil Affairs Company in March 1981. Soon afterwords,
direct communication was established between Robert McKillop of the Coastal
Resources Center and the 443rd Civil Affairs Company.
As a result of this communication, the 443rd Civil Affairs Company accepted
the mission of conducting a study to determine the feasibility of a volunteer
effort to remove loose on-shore debris in the Upper Narragansett Bay.

Scope of this study

It was decided during the preliminary stages of this project that the 443rd
Civil Affairs Company would limit its study to a volunteer clean-up effort of
loose on-shore debris. This decision was based on two key factors:

A. The Army Corps of Engineers had completed in 1978 an extensive and
comprehensive report on debris removal in the Upper Bay and contiguos
waterways. This report, together with additional studies and actions by
the Coastal Resources Council and related organizations, had identified
a three phase debris removal effort:

1. a major one time effort by the Corps of Engineers (funded jointly by
federal cost sharing and non-federal funds) to remove delapidated wharves
and piers, sunken barges etc.
2. an effort by the R.I. Department of Environmental Management to
identify owners of delapidated shore-front buildings, wharves and piers
etc. and to use existing laws to order removal of the debris.
3. a volunteer clean-up effort to remove debris and thereby reduce the costs
of item Al (above).

B. A volunteer effort (identified in A3 above) would require extensive planning,
coordination and preparation and would be by its very nature limited in
scope to what relatively unskilled and unequipped volunteers could do
manually with a few hours effort.

-1-

Pro,ject ZIT

Pro4ect ZAP was a major volunteer effort to clean up the Blackstone River
in September 1972, Project, ZAP was eminently successful and has been used
both locally and nationally as a mr@del for volunteer clean-up campaigns.
Unit members of the 443rd- Civil Affairs Company did extensive research
on Project. ZAP as a major part of this feasibility study. Both newspaper
clippings maintained in the Journal --Pulletin "morgue` and a scra
I= pbook maintained
by Leighton Authier (Director of Project ZAP and 2 Journal -Bulletin manager)
were used as resources. Unit members also interviewed two of the key le-.ders
of PrD@ect ZAP: Leighton Authier and Clarence Gaudette (Director of the
Blackstone River 'Watershed Association). Both men were very cooperative and
extremely helpful and we are most appreciative of their assistance.
Key features of Project ZAP were:

-ional control.
Stronc, centralized leadership with decentralized local funct
Essentially, Project 7AP coordinators did all the major planning,
recruited all key personnel, obtained all heavy equipment and other
donations, established lines of -communications (both in advance anrl on
the clean-up day itself) and allocated resources to each of eizht local
sections; the responsibilities for identification of debris, assi=-.ent
of volunteers, and initiatinE requests for specific types of heavy
equipment and other material,- were decentralized to the level of "section
chairman". Yhe Blackstone River was divided into eirht clearly
identified sections; P chairma:n was responsible for the "hands-on" clean-
up of a specific section. Volunteers were asked to report to the
headquarters of a specific section and at that time signed liability
releases, received instructions and safety rules, and were assigned
to particular project-s under the leadersbip of team captains and

coordinators.

Extensive Dublicit-@,-. The Providence Journal-Bulletin was the s-Donsor of
Project ZAP, Leighton Authier, a Journal-Bulletin employee, served as
the Director of Project Z.U. 'Fhe Journal-Bulletin also prov-ided a
telephone number which 'was used by anyone wishing to donate equipment,
materials, their own volunteer labor etc. Newspaper publicity was
extensive and was probably a ke-
y element to the success of Prolect ZAi,.

-2-

Articles were used to:

- Solicit and recognize public support and specific committments,
- Solicit and recognize the support of business and industry, and to
request donations of specific equipment.
- Inform volunteers of what to bring, what to wear, where to report,
safety precautions, etc.
- Publicize endorsements of political, civic, and industrial leaders.
- Generate an atmosphere of community support and cooperation which
climaxed in the feeling that participating in ZAP was the "thing to do".

Intensive planning over a long period of time.

Widespread support of political, civic, and business leaders.

A full-time staff to serve as the nucleus of leadership. These were several
individuals who worked full time (either as volunteers or as paid
representatives of another organization, eg. the R.I. National Guard) planning
and coordinating Project ZAP. A full-time staff is especially important
during the final stages of a volunteer project; the initial stages could
be under the direction of one person.

A one-day effort. This provides maximum exposure and a concentration Of

resources plus a fuller coordination of efforts.

Benefits Of 2 volunteer debris removal project

Immediately removes some debris at a minimum cost.

Educates the general public; heightens public sensitivity to the problem of
pollution.

Offers the individual a chance to "do something" to improve the environment.

Provides leverage to use when dealing with identified owners of debris.

Provides additional support to use when seeking legislation to fund
removal of debris.

Serves as a specific accomplishment that an agency (eg. Coastal Resources Center,
D.E.M., Save the Bay) can use as an example of progress and accomplishment.

Spawns other clean-up campaigns (eg. Bar-ZAP, Clean-up of the Pawtuxet, etc).

-3-

Suggested Functional Organization

General Chairman
Legal Advisor (legal implications of any activities; releases by volunteers
and donors of equipment; access to shoreline; etc.)
Communications Chairman (military and civilian radio equipment for the day
of the activity)

Publicity Chairman (newspaper releases; slogan; bumper stickers; identification
pins; radio station support/sponsorship; public service
announcements)
Equipment chairman (heavy equipment; gloves; trash bags; etc.)

R.1. National Guard Coordinator
Volunteer Chairman (recruit and assign volunteers; traffic control; direction
signs; train team leaders; non-National Guard military
support)
Disposal Chairman (sites; permits; agency coordination)
Health and Safety Chairman ( medical support; safety instructions)
Food Services Chairman (coffee breaks; lunch; cold drinks)
State/Community Liaison Chairman (coordinate with state agencies and local
municipalities)

Limiting Factors

Disposal site

Public response

Weather

Professional Staff

Sponsor

-4-

Work Schedule

By Oct. 15 Select sponsor (eg. Save the Bay, D.E.M.)
Oct. 30 Recruit General Chairman
Nov. 15 Obtain Journal-Bulletin cooperation/sponsorship
Nov. 30 Initial publicity
Nov. 30 Meet with all organizations with vested interests. Cbtain their
endorsements, full cooperation and staff support.
Dec. 15 Develop organization
Dec. 15 Develop initial plan of action and timetable
Jan. 15 Recruit functional chairmen (see Suggested Functional Organization)

Feb. 1 Obtain radio station cooperation
Feb. 1 Additional publicity
Feb. 1 Fully develop a final plan of action and timetable
Mar. 1 Recruit for specific needs (manpower and materials)
Mar. 1 Full-time staffing
Mar. 15 Begin intensive publicity
Apr. 1 Coordinate actions, needs, resources

-5-

Conclusion and Recor-nnen6ntionf

A volunteer effort to remove locse on-shore debsris in the upper
@-arragansett Bav is feasible. A successful effort will require much 'work.,
detailed planning.. excellent leadership, and cooperation by many agencies and
oroanization s. There is always the risk that an undertaking that is this,
extensive and ambitious may not be a complete success: however, one shore front
resident surned up his feelings when he asked,, "'when are you going to stop
studying this mess and do something about it?".
We recormn-end that a one day effort be scheduled for the spring of 1982
(on Saturday.,.Mpy 8, 15 or 22). Spring is the traditional clean-up season,
generally offers mild weather and still avoids the vacati-n season. The
day selected should ideally have low tide between the hours of 12:00 noon and
2:00 PX ( or as close to this as possible on the suggested dates) so as to
offer maximum access to the'shore. A target. date of May, 1982.affords
sufficient.time to plan and organize this effort and to mobilize widespread
community sup-port.

10 March 1982
DEBRIS REMOVAL WORK GROUP
Options for Debris Clean-up & Disposal in the Seekonk River

Outline of
Proposed State-Debris Removal Program

a. Letter to debris owners describing cooperative clean-up
incentives program

b. Site-inspections to determine actual debris problem, and
terms of compliance

C. cost estimate of removal

d. Area Debris Task Force and coordinated control program

e. Timetable for compliance

f. Certification of removal compliance

DEBRIS REMOVAL PJW&RtL(1

Debris Removal Program

1- Basic Approach

a- ImPlement CRMC Policy,, DEM authority

b- Encourage Army Corps project

C. Volunteer cleanup of selected areas

2. Working Group Response

a. Support, but work independently of Corps

b. Fmphasize incentives rather than legal action

C. Divide harbor into sub-areas

d. Begin detaile d planning & implementation in Seekonk River

Incentives Program

1. Reduced disposal fees at state landfill ($4.50 ton)

2. Coordinated planning to obtain economies of scale by, CR11C, DEM, local

a. establish subareas & clean-up groups

b. certification/documentation by DEM

c. sub-area inventories & specific removal plans to reduce costs for

debris owners

3. Investigate sources of low-interest financing, i.e. EDC/RIPA

Seekonk River Debris Owners

Name Est. Cost

Almacs 149 $ 17,815
American Vessels 186,111
Brennan 166 24,383
City of Providence 169 -
Eddy Chevrolet 157 17,301
Marvern Co. 154 10,508
Merchants Dist. 158 8,913
Pawtucket Ready-M 153 1,636
Pawtucket Red. Ag. 160 11,413
Penn Central 168 1,615
Promet 139.140,142 54,738
Valley Gas 161,162 4,134
Washburn Wire 148 3,884

$ 342,451

19% of total project
costs for structures

Options for Area-wide Debris Removal,
Seekonk River

a. Individual compliance

In this option, no special effort would be made to
coordinate the clean-up of privately owned structures in
order to achieve potential cost reductions. A small crew
could be organized and made available to individuals with
small amounts of debris. Each owner would be free to com-
ply as he sees fit. A volunteer effort and other activities
to focus public attention on the problem would be the focus
of t@ie Task Force.

b. Site by site removal

In this option, trucking to the disposal site would be
coordinated to achieve a possible transportation cost sav-
ings. Each owner would stockpile the debris on his own
site, waiting for a crew with a large hauling vehicle and
payloader to remove the material. Several small sites
could be handled in a few trips. owners would pay their
portion of the total cost.

Advantages: potential cost savings on hauling is an
incentive for participation
no extra collection site needed
likely to result in substantial reduction
of debris inventory due to coordinated
effort

Disadvantages: cost must be fairly allocated
coordination essential, requiring ca-reful
management
all must cooperate if savings to be realized

c. Centralized collection site

In this option, one or two central locations would be
established to collect debris from various owners. Hauling
to the disposal site would be achieved in a continuous
operation once the site was full, with no need to bring
trucks and payloaders to each site.

Advantages: cooperation of all debris owners in a
short period of time less crucial
greater symbolic value, i.e. progress
more evident
more compatible with a volunteer clean-up
program

Charge of the Seekonk Debris Removal
Task Force

a. Group should be composed of debris owners, citizens,
public officials, contractors

b. State will initiate program

C. Public endorsement, encouragement required as follow-up
to State effort

d. Detailed plans for area clean-up prepared by Task Force/
State, including best removal practices and efficient
disposal

e. Pressure on communities/owners for compliance

f. Convene public meetings, organize publicity

g. Organize volunteer clean-up

h. Serve as a model effort for other clean-up areas

Disadvantages: requires double handling of debris
cost allocation harder to determine
collection site must be located
less resistant to failure of project, i.e.
nonpayment of hauling costs by owners,
or lack of management and oversight
collection sites may attract unwanted
garbacre and trash

d. Questions for discussion

(1) Which is cheapest?

(2) How can a fair allocation of hauling costs be made?

(3)* Which is most resistant to failure?

(4) Which siteSwould be most effectively handled sep-
arately?

NOAA COASTAL StRVICES CTR LIBRARY

3 6668 14110541 3