EPA 600/R 12/050 | September 2012
www.epa.gov/ord
U ited States
Environmental Protec ion
Agency
the Past:
Ecological History of
Greenwich Bay, Rhode Island
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division
-------
Front cover: General View of Scalloptown, East Greenwich, and the Fishing Grounds
Back cover: Interior of a Scallop Shanty- "Cutting Scallops" for the Market
Wood engravings from Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper (Leslie's Weekly), Nov. 14,1877. (Rhode Island Historical Society, RHi X35799)
-------
EPA/600/R-12/050 | September 2012
www.epa.gov/ord
Imprint of the Past:
Ecological History of Greenwich Bay, Rhode Island
Carol E. Pesch
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Atlantic Ecology Division
Narragansett, RI 02882
Emily J. Shumchenia
Graduate School of Oceanography
University of Rhode Island
Narragansett, RI 02882
Michael A. Charpentier
Raytheon
Narragansett, RI 02882
Marguerite C. Pelletier
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Atlantic Ecology Division
Narragansett, RI 02882
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
Atlantic Ecology Division
Narragansett, RI 02882
-------
Notice
The research in this document has been funded wholly by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. This report has been subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and
has been approved for publication as an EPA document. The mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or a recommendation for use. This
report is contribution number AED-11-096 of the Atlantic Ecology Division, National Health
and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development.
The suggested citation for this report is:
Pesch, C.E., E.J. Schumchenia, M.A. Charpentier, and M.C. Pelletier. 2012.
Imprint of the Past: Ecological History of Greenwich Bay, Rhode Island. EPA/600/R-12/050.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National
Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division, Narragansett, RI.
Abstract
Because environmental problems are often caused by an accumulation of impacts over several decades
or even centuries, it is necessary to look at the environmental history of an area to understand
what happened and why, before solutions can be devised. This case study of Greenwich Bay, a
small sub-estuary of Narragansett Bay, describes the connection between the development in the
watershed and the ecology of the bay. We divided the cultural history of the Greenwich Bay area
into five time periods (Pre-Colonial, before 1650; Colonial, c. 1650 to c. 1750; Maritime, c. 1730 to
c. 1820; Industrial, c. 1800 to c. 1945; and Suburbanization, c. 1945 to present) and described the
ecological effects associated with each. During the first three periods, ecological effects occurred
but were minimal. Major ecological effects occurred in the last 150 years. During the Industrial
Period, the increase in people and industries resulted in bacterial pollution and shellfish bed
closures, chemical pollution, and obstruction of anadromous fish runs by dams. Overfishing in all
of Narragansett Bay reduced fish stocks. During the Suburbanization Period, the bay was affected
by more bacterial pollution, increased nitrogen input, eutrophication, low oxygen, fish kills, and
loss of eelgrass and scallops. This historical analysis of Greenwich Bay provides an opportunity
to inform scientists, managers, and citizens about the consequences of development and gives
environmental managers a foundation on which to make informed decisions for the future.
Key words: historical ecology; ecological history; environmental history; Greenwich Bay, RI
-------
Table of Contents
Notice ii
Abstract ii
List of Figures iv
List of Tables v
Acknowledgements vi
Executive Summary vii
Introduction 1
Pre-Colonial Period - before 1650 5
Colonial Period - c. 1650 to c. 1750 9
Maritime Period - c. 1730 to c. 1820 11
Industrial Period - c. 1800 to c. 1945 15
Suburbanization Period - c. 1945 to present 33
Summary 43
References 47
Appendix A 57
Short How-to Guide on Historical Reconstruction of Environmental Effects
Appendix B 59
Contaminants in the Environment
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1 Map of Greenwich Bay watershed 2
Figure 2 Map of Greenwich Cove shoreline at East Greenwich for three dates:
1836, 1870, and 1997 12
Figure 3 Location of industries in the Greenwich Bay watershed from 1800 to 1920 17
Figure 4 Population of the three towns surrounding Greenwich Bay, 1800 to 2000 18
Figure 5 Estimated population of Greenwich Bay watershed, 1800 to 2000 18
Figure 6 Map of sewer lines in East Greenwich, 1896 to the 1950s 22
Figure 7 Profiles of chromium, copper, and lead concentrations in sediment cores
taken from Apponaug Cove and Greenwich Bay 23
Figure 8 Map offish traps in Narragansett Bay in 1910 27
Figure 9 Commercial quahog harvest from Narragansett Bay 28
Figure 10 The 1910 Sanborn Fire Insurance map showing the area known as Scalloptown 29
Figure 11 Map of impervious surfaces in the Greenwich Bay watershed in 2004 33
Figure 12 Length of docks in Greenwich Bay, 1951 to 2003 40
Figure 13 Timeline showing the population of the Greenwich Bay watershed,
local and national events, and some environmental trends in the bay 44
IV
-------
List of Tables
Table 1 List of species found at the Greenwich Cove archeology site 6
Table 2 Early textile and metalworking industries in East Greenwich 16
Table 3 Comparison of historical metal concentrations in sediment cores
from Greenwich Bay and Narragansett Bay 24
Table 4 Number offish traps in Rhode Island waters at the turn of the twentieth century 27
Table 5 Fishing resources and catch in Apponaug and East Greenwich in 1880 28
Table 6 Shellfishing products reported for 1865 28
Table 7 Number of beach closure days for three public beaches in Greenwich Bay 36
Table 8 Summary of the major ecological effects of development on Greenwich Bay 43
-------
Acknowledgements
We thank the following people who were very helpful in the research for this report: Bruce
MacGunnigle, Clerk's Office East Greenwich Town Hall; Alan Clarke, East Greenwich; Michael
Pacillo and Fred Gomes, East Greenwich Department of Public Works; Richard Greenwood, Rhode
Island Historical Preservation & Heritage Commission; Jim Boyd, Coastal Resources Management
Council; and Lynn Owens, Warwick Sewer Authority. The historical photographs and images used
in this report were obtained from: Marion Helwig and Rachel Peirce, East Greenwich Historic
Preservation Society; Felicia Gardella, Warwick Historical Society; Bruce MacGunnigle, East
Greenwich Town Hall; and the Rhode Island Historical Society. Aerial photographs were taken by
Christopher Deacutis, Narragansett Bay Estuary Program. This report was reviewed by Stephen
Hale, Richard McKinney, Suzanne Ayvazian, Timothy Gleason, and Wayne Munns (Atlantic
Ecology Division). Giancarlo Cicchetti and Edward Dettmann provided helpful comments on the
text. Patricia DeCastro (SRA International, Inc.) prepared the graphs and formatted the report.
Source of section head images and quotes. Executive Summary (p. vii), left to right - Fishermen's
shanties along East Greenwich waterfront (East Greenwich Historic Preservation Society); Beach and
Breakwater, Nausauket, RI (postcard, Rhode Island Historical Society, RHi X17 1245); Apponaug
Mill with workers (Warwick Historical Society). Introduction (p. 1) - aerial view of Greenwich Cove
(photograph by Christopher Deacutis, Narragansett Bay Estuary Program). Pre-Colonial Period (p. 5)
- aerial photograph altered to simulate how the watershed would have looked when mostly wooded
with pristine beaches and water. Colonial Period (p. 9) - stone wall photograph by Carol E. Pesch.
Maritime Period (p. 11) - etching of East Greenwich waterfront (East Greenwich Historic Preservation
Society). Industrial Period (p. 15) - Greenwich Worsted Mills, 1918, just over the town line in
Warwick, RI (East Greenwich Historic Preservation Society). Suburbanization Period (p. 33) - aerial
view of houses in Oakland Beach, Warwick (photograph by Christopher Deacutis, Narragansett Bay
Estuary Program). Summary (p. 43) - aerial view of Buttonwoods and Brush Neck Coves (photograph
by Christopher Deacutis, Narragansett Bay Estuary Program); quote from: McPartland, M.R. 1960.
The History of East Greenwich, Rhode Island 1677-1960: with Related Genealogy, p. 188 [27]. Quotes:
p. viii, Mark R. Tercek. 2012. The Nature Conservancy Magazine, Issue 3, p. 9; p. 14, D.H. Greene.
1877. History of the Town of East Greenwich and Adjacent Territory from 1677 to 1877, p. 2 [51].
VI
-------
Executive Summary
To formulate solutions for environmental problems, research scientists and managers have to
understand the ecological conditions in the area of interest. Because environmental problems
are often caused by an accumulation of impacts over several decades or even centuries, it is necessary
to look at the environmental history of an area to understand what happened and why, before
solutions can be devised. Further, it is important to understand true baseline conditions, and not
just what is in recent memory. Historical information can be used in the process of developing
a system-wide approach to set realistic management goals based on understanding current
ecological conditions and knowing what ecological habitats and organisms existed in the past.
Greenwich Bay, a small sub-estuary of Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, provides a unique and
interesting case study of estuarine changes over time. Yet, the history of human influences on
Greenwich Bay is not atypical or unusual for estuaries on the U.S. Atlantic coast. To better
understand this system, the cultural history of the local area was divided into five time periods
that corresponded to the human activities in the watershed at those times. Within each time
period, the activities and their associated ecological effects were researched and reported.
The dates of these periods are approximate, and the activities in the periods overlap. In the
earliest time period, the Pre-Colonial (before 1650), the native peoples utilized the abundant
natural resources available in Greenwich Bay and its watershed—fish, shellfish, mammals,
plants, trees, clay deposits, seagrass, and fresh water. They modified the terrestrial habitat
by clearing underbrush from the woods to facilitate hunting. They took shellfish from the
bay, and the decrease in oyster shell size, over time, at an archeological site indicates that
human harvesting may have affected populations of shellfish. However, the ecological effects
of prehistoric peoples and Native Americans on Greenwich Bay were probably minimal.
In the Colonial Period (c. 1650 to c. 1750), the settlers in the watershed cleared land, planted
crops, and grazed animals. The amount of land cleared during this period probably increased the
amount of sediment entering the bay. During the Maritime Period (c. 1730 to c. 1820), the waters
of Greenwich Bay became important as a means of transportation for trading purposes. There
were some changes, although not major, to the coastline as wharfs were built and shorelines were
hardened. As more land was cleared there was evidence of increased sediment entering the bay.
During the Industrial Period (c. 1800 to c. 1945), especially after 1850, human activity
had measurable ecological effects on Greenwich Bay. The 13-fold increase in human
population resulted in a dramatic increase in the amount of sewage. The bay waters became
polluted with fecal bacteria, and areas of the bay were closed to shellfishing. Industries
in the watershed polluted the bay with chemicals. Episodes of low oxygen occurred in
sections of the bay. Dams built on brooks obstructed the passage of anadromous fish.
In the Suburbanization Period (c. 1945 to present), the ecological effects on the bay resulted
primarily from the continuously increasing number of people in the watershed. The population
VII
-------
in the watershed doubled, and farmland was converted to residential and commercial uses.
Bacterial contamination in the bay caused more areas to be closed to shellfishing and caused
some beach-closure days. Increased input of nitrogen to the bay resulted in eutrophication, which
caused low oxygen at times during the summer months, and which in turn caused fish kills.
Eelgrass declined and is no longer found in the bay. Scallops do not grow in the bay anymore.
This case study describes the connection between the development in the watershed and the ecology
of Greenwich Bay, and allows us to appreciate the natural resources that were present in the bay before
the major impacts of the last 150 years. On an ecological time scale, people have short memories.
Today, citizens of the watershed see the abundant quahog harvests, but probably don't know that
less than one hundred years ago the bay bottom was covered with eelgrass (suggesting that the bay
water was much clearer) and the bay was a productive scallop area. Environmental conditions have
been changing since initial settlement; the direction of those changes in the future, whether toward
a cleaner, healthier environment or toward continued degradation, will depend on the management
decisions made at local and regional levels. This historical analysis of Greenwich Bay provides an
opportunity to inform the scientists, managers, and citizens about the consequences of development
and gives environmental managers a foundation on which to make informed decisions for the future.
"!\jature provides the rood, water and air we need to survive,
but it also nourishes our spirits through the places we call
home and the landscapes, waters and wildlife that inspire us."
VIM
-------
Introduction
This narrative tells the story of Greenwich
Bay—the story of the people who lived
and worked on the land around the bay, and the
story of the effects of their activities on the bay.
Five hundred years ago, the land surrounding
Greenwich Bay was wooded and bustled with
abundant wildlife—deer, bear, turkeys, other
birds, rodents, and other small animals. The
waters of the bay teemed with abundant fish
and shellfish—sturgeon, striped bass, salmon,
shad, oysters, scallops, soft-shell clams, and
quahogs. These resources supported the Native
American people living in the watershed.
Today, the watershed is a suburban landscape
of housing developments and commercial
property, and the quality of the bay water has
been compromised—shellfish beds are closed
due to bacterial contamination, eelgrass and
scallops no longer grow in the bay, dams on
streams block anadromous fish migrations, and
low dissolved oxygen levels in summer have
caused fish kills. How did these changes come
about, and why is this history important?
The activities of people and industries affect the
environment, and often the changes are negative.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has a mission to protect human health
and the environment. EPA's original approach
to research and manage pollution problems
was by "command and control"—the method
of regulating specific chemicals at discharge
sites. Research was conducted on individual
pollutants and their effects on particular
species in each separate medium—water, air,
or land—to set water quality criteria or air
quality standards (concentrations of pollutants
and pathogens that are intended to protect
biological organisms and human health), which
the states would then implement. After criteria
were developed for some of the worst pollutants
and after pretreatment of industrial waste was
mandated, EPA adopted a more comprehensive
approach to solve environmental problems.
About two decades ago, EPA began an effort in
community-based environmental protection [1].
This approach was based on a consensus-building
process among the stakeholders (local planners,
zoning officials, local business people, state and
federal environmental managers, and citizens) to
identify local environmental problems, evaluate
community priorities, plan and implement
solutions, and assess the results. The focus was
on more than just the effluents at the end of a
pipe because environmental problems are often
caused by interaction between pollutants from
different sources and can affect large portions of
a watershed (the area drained by a river system).
Current environmental problems are more
complex and challenging. Increased nitrogen
loading, climate change, sea-level rise, and
invasive species are complex issues that affect
ecological conditions and require creative
solutions. Recently, EPA's Office of Research and
Development has adopted a multidisciplinary
approach to focus on complex environmental
problems of broad national interest [2]. The
emphasis of this research is to provide solutions
that are sustainable, and responsive to the
needs of multiple stakeholder groups. This
requires scientists and managers to understand
ecological conditions in the affected area.
Because environmental problems are often
the result of impacts accumulated over several
decades or even centuries, managers need
to look at the environmental history of an
area in order to understand what happened
and why, before solutions can be devised.
Introduction
-------
Historical analysis of ecological consequences
is a valuable tool in solving environmental
problems [3, 4]. Current ecological conditions
are the result of events that have occurred over
decades or even centuries. Small impacts over
time can be additive. Historical studies help
us understand the connection between what
happens on land and the condition of adjacent
water bodies. These studies also help us recognize
that some decisions and their accompanying
actions can cause long-term environmental
consequences, and thus these studies can help
environmental managers make informed
decisions. Historical information can be used
to set realistic management goals based on an
understanding of current ecological conditions
and a knowledge of past ecological habitats and
organisms [5, 6]. Historical studies help scientists
realize that while current ecological conditions
were certainly different several hundred years
ago, conditions might have been very different as
little as fifty years ago. Historical studies can be
used to inform stakeholder groups and to engage
them in a dialog about important issues. Because
many people have a strong interest in where they
live, historical studies can be used to engage
the public in discussions of the environmental
issues they face in their home towns.
Greenwich Bay is a shallow embayment on the
western side of Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island,
USA (Fig. 1). The bay with its five coves covers
about five square miles (13 km2). It is surrounded
on the north, west, and south by the towns
of Warwick and East Greenwich. Most of the
21-square mile (54.6 km2) watershed lies within
Warwick (79.6%), with smaller portions in East
Greenwich (10.6%) and West Warwick (9.8%).
Greenwich Bay is an estuary, a place where fresh
water and salt water mix. The largest freshwater
inputs come from Hardig Brook, its tributaries,
and Gorton Pond via Apponaug Brook (33%),
which empty into Apponaug Cove, and the
Maskerchugg River and its tributaries (30%),
which empty into Greenwich Cove (Fig. 1).
The remaining fresh water comes from smaller
streams, the East Greenwich Waste Water
Treatment Facility, surface runoff, ground water
flow, and stormwater outfalls [7]. Salt water
enters Greenwich Bay from Narragansett Bay on
incoming tides and mixes with the fresh water. In
WEST
WARWICK
CRANSTON
,,,/
} TfeteX 3il
2«w. ronu
..,, Braot .
i xi* Apponaug
V
WARWICK
(ittrfiHt
Paml
,,.
Apponaug Apnoaaug
""'"*' : r,nv
Cove
Greenwich
EAST GREENWICH
NORTH
KINGSTOWN
Narragamett
Bay
Figure 1. The watershed of Greenwich Bay, which is located on the west side of Narragansett
Bay, includes sections of three towns, Warwick, East Greenwich, and West Warwick.
2 Imprint of the Past
-------
addition to tidal exchanges, wind conditions can
affect the exchange of water with Narragansett
Bay. Strong southwesterly winds can trap water in
Greenwich Bay and thus minimize the exchange
of water [8]. Models that simulate tidal movement
and winds have show that, under certain
conditions, water from upper Narragansett Bay is
swept around Warwick Neck and into Greenwich
Bay [9]. Thus, in addition to freshwater inputs
from the surrounding watershed, Greenwich
Bay is affected by Narragansett Bay water.
The geology of Greenwich Bay and its watershed
was shaped by glaciers. Rhode Island coastal
estuaries were formed as the glaciers in the
last ice age (16,000 years ago) retreated, and
the melting waters caused the sea level to rise
and flood the land. Sediment deposited by the
melting ice formed the features of coastal Rhode
Island, Narragansett Bay, and Greenwich Bay.
As the glacier melted, Greenwich Bay was part
of a river system that drained eastward into a
glacial lake located in present-day Narragansett
Bay. The western shore of Greenwich Bay is
composed of coarse-grained sediments that were
deposited in front of the ice sheet as it retreated
[10]. Land masses on the southern (Potowomut)
and northern shores of Greenwich Bay are deltas
that formed as meltwater drained eastward [11].
Marine waters entered Greenwich Bay between
6500 and 5000 years before present (BP) [12, 13].
In the term BP, "present" was standardized to
be 1950, so 5000 BP is about 3050 BC. The rate
of sea-level rise declined between 3000 and 300
years BP and Greenwich Bay stabilized as a low-
energy depositional environment [11, 13]. The
Greenwich Bay sub-systems on the northern
side (Apponaug, Buttonwoods, Brush Neck, and
Warwick Coves) were likely formed either by
erosion of material by seasonal ground water
discharge [11] or were part of an organized post-
glacial river system [12]. The sources and paths
of ground water to Greenwich Bay are important
because ground water has been identified as a
potential source of nitrogen to the bay [7, 14].
Greenwich Bay's historic heritage provides a
unique sense of place [7]. The bay has attracted
people to live along its protected shore for
thousands of years. Throughout history, residents
have relied on shellfish for food and economic
purposes—first oysters, then scallops, and now
quahogs. Colonial settlers were attracted by
the availability of suitable land and access to
marine resources. During the eighteenth century,
the waterfront at East Greenwich developed
as a harbor for trade and fishing. Textile mills
were built in East Greenwich and Apponaug
during the Industrial Revolution. Hotels, picnic
areas, a campground, an amusement park, and
beaches at Oakland Beach and Buttonwoods,
along the bay's northern shore, provided
recreation during the nineteenth century.
Many historic homes and buildings can be seen
throughout the watershed, especially in East
Greenwich, Apponaug, and Buttonwoods.
Residents and businesses in the Greenwich Bay
watershed played a part in some historical events
of national significance. Warwick residents
participated in the burning of the British revenue
schooner Gaspee in 1772 in the lead-up to the
American Revolution. Members of the Kentish
Guards, a state militia formed in East Greenwich
in 1774, participated in the American Revolution.
General James Mitchell Varnum of East
Greenwich served in the Continental Army, and
Potowomut resident General Nathanael Greene
was George Washington's second-in-command
during the Revolution [15]. Civil War General
George Sears Greene of Apponaug led the heroic
defense of Gulp's Hill at Gettysburg [16]. A
factory on Chepiwanoxet Point manufactured
seaplanes for the U.S. Navy during World War
I, and a shipyard on Greenwich Cove built
Coast Guard Picket boats in the early 1900s
and Sub-Chaser boats during World War II.
Today, a large portion of the watershed is
developed; in 2003-2004, 64% of the watershed
consisted of commercial, industrial and built
land, including 43% residential development.
Almost 25% of the bay shoreline is devoted to
recreation [7]. The bay, with its many marinas,
attracts recreational boaters and is also home
to a small fleet of commercial fisherman. Three
beaches (Oakland Beach, Warwick City Park, and
Goddard Memorial State Park), four golf courses
(two public, two private), and walking trails
in three parks (Warwick City Park, Goddard
Memorial State Park, and Chepiwanoxet Point)
provide recreational opportunities for the public.
Introduction
-------
Greenwich Bay provides habitat for many
species. Bottom sediments serve as habitat
for shellfish, including quahogs (Mercenaria
mercenaria), soft-shell clams (Mya arenaria),
oysters (Crassostrea virginica) and blue mussels
(Mytilus edulis). Resident and migratory species
of finfish are found in the bay. A study by the
Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management (RIDEM) identified 41 species of
juvenile and adult fish in Greenwich Bay [17],
and the bay's protected coves serve as spawning
areas for several species of finfish [7]. The bay's
wetlands also provide valuable ecosystem
services. Tidal and freshwater wetlands provide
habitat for fish and other wildlife. Wetlands act
as gigantic filters, removing sediments, chemical
pollutants, and nutrients, thus helping to improve
water quality. Coastal wetlands help protect
the shoreline from erosion during storms, and
preserve areas of scenic beauty. Greenwich Bay
provides habitat for migrating birds, wintering
waterfowl, and permanent nesting bird species.
Sandy beaches along the bay are used as nesting
places by coastal birds, as haul-out places
for harbor seals, and as spawning sites for
horseshoe crabs. The variety of natural habitats
that exist in a healthy Greenwich Bay provides
support for the many valued native species that
depend on these habitats and also provides
support for the recreational and commercial
activities of the people in the watershed.
Events in the past two decades have brought
attention to the declining condition of Greenwich
Bay waters and the resulting threats to the
watershed's historic and economic heritage.
In 1993, the bay was closed to shellfishing
because of bacterial pollution—it is now
open conditionally—and in August 2003, a
massive fish kill occurred due to low dissolved
oxygen levels. It should be noted, however,
that degradation of the bay and its watershed
has not just been caused by recent human
activities, but is the result of the cumulative
effects of human activities that have occurred
over the past one hundred and fifty years.
Much has been written about the cultural
history of the Greenwich Bay watershed, and
many scientific studies have been conducted
in Greenwich Bay. The narrative that follows
is a summary of the cultural history of the
Greenwich Bay watershed and the ecological
effects that history had on the bay and watershed.
To organize and present this information, we
divided the cultural history into five time periods
(Pre-Colonial, Colonial, Maritime, Industrial,
and Suburbanization) that corresponded to
the human activities in the watershed, and
then determined the ecological effects of the
activities within each period. The dates of
these periods are approximate, and many
activities overlap two or more periods.
Research Methods
For the cultural history of the watershed, we
found written histories of Warwick and East
Greenwich in town libraries and online. We
searched for historical maps of Warwick and
East Greenwich in libraries, town halls, and
online. Population statistics were taken from
the U.S. Census reports. Historical photographs
were obtained from historical societies and
private collections. We used a geographic
information system (GIS) to compare coastlines
and wetlands from historical maps to present-
day maps. Locations of former industries were
determined from written histories and from the
Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps (1884 to 1941).
Ecological information about Greenwich Bay
was found in historical state and federal reports,
scientific publications, and the Greenwich
Bay Special Area Management Plan [7].
We used GIS to create the maps contained in
this report. GIS and Rhode Island Geographic
Information System (RIGIS) data layers
were used to calculate various features: area
of bay and watershed, portion of towns in
the watershed, land use, population of the
watershed, length of hardened shoreline,
and area of impervious surface. To evaluate
the growth of marinas, we used GIS to
measure the length of docks in historical
aerial photographs of Greenwich Bay (RIGIS
historical aerial photographs, 1939 to 2003).
4 Imprint of the Past
-------
Pre-Colonial Period - before
Native Americans
Native Americans occupied the area
surrounding Greenwich Bay for thousands
of years before Europeans arrived. During
the period between 8000 and 3000 years ago,
there was an increase in native people in the
Rhode Island area [18]. The earliest people
were migratory hunters, living in small bands
and following herds of animals [18]. Evidence
from archeological sites around Narragansett
Bay has shown that natives settled in villages
along the coastline, especially at protected
sites like Greenwich Cove, from around 3000
to 500 years ago. These native peoples hunted
game and gathered shellfish and wild plants.
Stone materials not native to Rhode Island
found at some archeological sites indicate that
early people in Rhode Island had contact with
other communities in New England [18]. In
the period just prior to European settlement,
four Native American groups, the Shawomets,
Cowesetts, Potowomuts and Pawtuxets, all
under the domination of the Narragansett tribe,
occupied the land around Greenwich Bay [15].
The archeological sites that have been excavated
around Narragansett Bay and Greenwich Bay
give some idea of the resources utilized by the
native people. The Sweet Meadow Brook site near
Apponaug had been occupied for about 1600
years starting about 100 BC [15]. Excavation
of the site in the late 1950s yielded remains of
shellfish and deer, stone tools, and bowls made of
soapstone, which probably came from quarries
in Cranston [15]. At a site on the southern
shore of Greenwich Cove, evidence of shellfish
(oyster) use first appeared around 2700 BP, and
on Potowomut Neck shells were dated to about
2300 BP [19]. Some archeologists believe that
the intensive harvesting of shellfish started after
the coast stabilized and marshes and mud flats
developed, which would have been after about
4000 to 5000 BP in New England [19, 20].
Analysis of the artifacts at the Greenwich Cove
archeological site showed that as time progressed
more resources were utilized by the native
people [19]. Over the time period represented
by this site (about 2700 to 400 BP), seven species
of shellfish were found in the midden; four of
these—quahog, soft-shell clam, oyster, and bay
scallop—accounted for 99.5% (by weight) of the
shells recovered, while ribbed mussel, channeled
whelk and slipper shell comprised the rest. The
pattern of shellfish utilization changed over
the time period this site was occupied. Initially,
around 2700 BP, oyster shells predominated (60%
of total number of shells), but oyster abundance
dropped to 16% by 2000 BP and stayed at about
that level for the next 1500 years. When oyster
abundance declined, soft-shell clam increased
from 24% to between 60 and 70% of the total
number of shells, while quahog remained at
about 20% or less. The author of this study, David
Bernstein, proposed that a likely explanation of
the shift in abundance from oyster to soft-shell
clams was sedimentation in Greenwich Cove,
which probably started when the rate of sea-level
rise slowed in the third millennium BP [19].
Oysters need a hard substrate, whereas clams and
quahogs inhabit soft bottoms. Based on estimates
of the weight of meat (an indication of nutritional
value), Bernstein concluded that oyster was the
most important shellfish from 2700 to 2000
BP, but oyster, quahog, and soft-shell clams
were about of equal nutritional importance
after about 2000 BP. The size of shells found in
the midden decreased in the last period before
Pre-Colonial
-------
European contact (1000 to 400 BP); Bernstein
suggested that the smaller size shellfish could
have resulted from human harvesting pressure
or from some environmental change [19].
Other animal remains found in the Greenwich
Cove midden were: three reptile species, four fish
species, five bird species, and thirteen mammal
species (Table 1) [19]. The bones of birds and
fish are smaller and more delicate than those
of mammals and are not preserved as well; this
probably accounted for fewer reported numbers
of these species. Based on estimates of available
meat, calculated from the number of bones
found in the midden, Bernstein concluded that
white-tailed deer was a major food source [19].
As with the shellfish, an increase in the number
of animal species was found as time progressed,
an indication that the native people were utilizing
an increased number of food resources.
Plant material deteriorates more rapidly than
shells and bones; remnants of only two plant
species, hickory nuts and acorns, were found at
the Greenwich Cove site [19]. However, fifteen
species of potentially edible plants gathered
from the wild have been found at seven other
archeological sites on the western side of
Narragansett Bay. Based on analysis of the plants
found at these other sites, Bernstein concluded
that hickory nuts were the most important plant
food. Pollen grains of domesticated plants such
as corn were not found during the prehistoric
period at the Narragansett Bay sites, although
they were found after European arrival [19,
21]. Bernstein and several other archeologists
[22, 23] concluded that agriculture in the
Greenwich Bay watershed was probably an
activity that developed after European contact.
This archeological evidence does not agree with
written historical accounts by the first European
visitors of natives growing corn and beans.
However, archeological evidence from other
Rhode Island sites supports this conclusion; a
small number of corn kernels and bean seeds
have been found at only two sites in Rhode
Island (in Cranston and on Point Judith Pond in
Narragansett) [18]. Archeologists speculate that
the resources of the woodlands and bay provided
enough food and other necessities without
having to expend the labor to grow food [18].
Some historians have described the movements
of native people in southern New England as
Table 1. List of species found at the Greenwich Cove archeology site, from Bernstein [19].
Shellfish
Quahog—Mercenaria mercenaria
Soft-shell clam—Mya arenaria
Oyster—Crassostrea virginica
Bay scallop—Aequipecten irradians
Channeled whelk—Busycon canaliculatum
Slipper shell—Crepidula fornicata
Ribbed mussel—Modiolus demissus
Reptiles
Snake—Natricinae cf. Thamnophis sp.
Turtles, pond, marsh and box (Emydidae)
Stinkpot turtle—Sternotherus odoratus
Birds
Turkey—Meleagris gallopavo
Thick-billed murre—Uria lomvia
Razorbill—Alca torda torda
Hawk—Accipiter sp.
Sandhill crane—Grus canadensis
Weakfish—Cynoscion regalis
Tautog—Tautoga onitis
Sea robin—Prionotus sp.
Sand shark—Carcharias littoralis
Mammals
White-tailed deer—Odocoileus virginianus
Eastern chipmunk—Tamias stratus
Eastern grey squirrel—Sciurus carolinensis
Beaver—Castor canadensis
Rabbit—Sylvilagus sp.
Raccoon—Procyon lotor
Black bear—Ursus americanus
Marten—Maries americana
River otter—Lutra canadensis
Striped skunk—Mephitis mephitis nigra
Canid—Cam's sp.
Red fox—Vulpes vulpes fulva
Gray fox—Urocyon cinereoargentus
6 Imprint of the Past
-------
living along the coast in the warmer months to
fish and collect shellfish, then moving inland
in winter to hunt. Analysis of quahog shells
and deer teeth can reveal generally what season
the animal died and therefore, when a site was
occupied. Analysis of the quahog shells and deer
teeth indicated that the sites at Greenwich Cove
and Lambert Farm, in the Cowesett section
of Warwick, were probably occupied for most
or all of the year [19, 24], while a nearby site
on Potowomut Neck was occupied only from
summer to late fall [25, 26]. Data from other
Narragansett Bay and southern New England
sites also suggested that movement of the native
peoples from coast to inland could have been
overestimated; they probably made limited moves
from one coastal site to another to take advantage
of the resources available [19]. Another important
resource near the site at the head of Greenwich
Cove was a freshwater spring. This spring,
located along the Pequot Trail near present-day
Post and Forge Roads, was an excellent source
of fresh water for the Native Americans and
later the colonists. In Colonial times, Roger
Williams named the spring, Elizabeth Spring,
in honor of Elizabeth Read, second wife of
Rhode Island Governor John Winthrop [27] .
Europeans Visit
Giovanni Verrazzano was the first European
known to have visited Narragansett Bay.
In 1524, he spent fifteen days exploring the
area. Verrazzano found the land "as pleasant
as I can possibly describe" [28]. He wrote
that the shores of the bay were bordered by
open fields and wooded areas clear of brush
[18, 28]. Verrazzano listed some of the trees,
fruit, and animals he and his crew saw: "oaks,
cypresses, and others unknown in our Europe";
"Lucullian apples (cherries), plums and filberts,
and many kinds of fruit different from ours";
"stags, deer, and lynx and other species" [28].
He wrote that the natives lived in villages, in
circular houses crafted from bent saplings
and covered by woven straw mats [18, 28].
The pollen record at the Greenwich Cove
archeological site indicates that substantial land
clearing occurred before European contact;
there was a shift in percentages of tree pollen
to grass and shrub pollen indicative of land
clearing, and also a lack of non-native species
[19, 21]. Verrazzano's description, along with
the archeological pollen record showing a
lack of domesticated plants, suggests that land
clearing was done for hunting rather than for
agricultural purposes. Cleared land would have
increased the carrying capacity of the land for
white-tailed deer and some other species that
the native people were utilizing as food [19, 29].
There is evidence that the Native Americans
managed the landscape by burning underbrush
to make the woods passable; however, David
Foster and his co-authors [30] have concluded
that burning was most likely to have occurred
much less frequently than annually (William
Wood, 1634) or "every spring and fall" (Thomas
Morton, 1632) that has been written about
and often cited by other authors. Surface fires,
even if not frequent, can affect forest structure,
composition, and ecosystem function [30]. Fire
kills the undergrowth and small trees, damages
less fire-resistant species, and results in an open
understory and an increase of fire-resistant
trees such as oaks, hickories, and birches.
From the time of Verrazzano's visit to
Narragansett Bay in 1524 to the early 1600s,
there was no real attempt to establish any
settlements, but European explorers and
traders made contacts in New England. These
traders brought diseases that were deadly to
the Native Americans; between 1616 and 1619,
epidemics killed many natives, destroying
villages and altering the social structure between
the tribes [18]. However, the Narragansetts,
who occupied the area west of Narragansett
Bay, did not suffer from these epidemics and
that left them in a position of power. In the
early 1600s, the Narragansett Tribe might
have had as many as 40,000 people [18].
In the early 1600s the Dutch had established
trade with the Native American tribes along the
southern coasts of Connecticut, Rhode Island,
and Massachusetts [31]. In exchange for furs,
primarily beaver, the Dutch supplied the natives
with blankets, cloth, kettles, knives, axes, guns,
and trinkets. By 1630 the center of the fur trade
had shifted to trading posts on land [31]. In
1639, a trading post was established by Richard
Smith on the Pequot Trail (present-day Post
Pre-Colonial
-------
Road) at Wickford, south of Greenwich Bay
[31]. In 1642 and 1643, two more trading posts
were established nearby (by Roger Williams
and John Wilcox) [31]. The Narragansetts were
deeply involved in the fur trade. Goods to barter
and European coins were in short supply so the
Narragansetts provided wampum—shell beads,
white made from periwinkle, purple made from
quahog—to use as currency [32]. Before trading
with Europeans the Narragansetts had made
wampum in small quantities to use with other
natives for special exchanges (long distance
trade, ransom, tribute, or to settle a feud) [18].
One local historian speculates that Nausauket,
the northern shore of Greenwich Bay between
Apponaug and Brush Neck Coves, was a location
where wampum was made because of the
large deposits of shell dust found there [32].
Beaver pelts were highly desirable in Europe,
and large numbers of pelts were acquired in
trade. For example, between 1623 and 1633,
10,000 beaver skins annually were obtained
from the Connecticut River fur trade [31].
Beavers are not migratory, so the beaver
populations along the coast were quickly
exploited. By 1660, fur trade along the western
shore of Narragansett Bay had declined [31].
Beavers and their removal due to the fur trade
had an effect on the ecology of New England
and probably on the Greenwich Bay watershed.
Before European settlement, beavers occupied
all of Canada and most of the continental United
States [33]. Almost every stream in New York
and probably New England had beavers [34].
The numerous beaver dams created ponds and
wetlands, which resulted in a landscape that
was much wetter than it is today [33]. Beaver
dams retain sediment and decrease stream
flow. Beavers also change the vegetation [33].
As deciduous trees are cut by beavers along
streams, the riparian zone initially becomes
more open, with shrubs the dominant vegetation.
Then species of trees not used by beavers, for
example spruce and fir, grow and become
the dominant stream-side vegetation. When
beavers abandon a pond, sediment continues to
collect behind the dam and a beaver meadow
is formed. Eventually a new stream bed cuts
through the meadow and drains the area
[33]. When large numbers of beavers were
removed, the land became much drier, and
water flow in streams and rivers increased,
causing more sediment to wash downstream.
Although the Greenwich Bay watershed is small
and has limited rivers and streams (Fig. 1),
beaver bones found at the archeological site at
Greenwich Cove are evidence that beavers were
present. The loss of beavers in the early 1600s
probably increased the amount of sediment
washed into the coves of Greenwich Bay.
Summary of Pre-Colonial Period
In the Pre-Colonial Period (before 1650), the
native people utilized the abundant natural
resources available in Greenwich Bay and its
watershed. During the late prehistoric period
(after 3000 BP), the native inhabitants of the
watershed continued "to expand and diversify
the available resource base" [19]. They used the
traditional foods—deer, shellfish, and nuts—
throughout this time period but continued to
add new resources to their diet. Trees were used
for fuel, for building shelters, and for making
canoes. Deer skins were used for clothing and
shelters. Springs supplied clean water. Marsh
grasses were used to make baskets and mats,
clay deposits to make ceramic pots, and shell,
bone, and stone to make a wide variety of tools
[18]. For the most part Native Americans settled
year-round on the coast to take advantage of
the marine resources and cleared the forest of
underbrush to improve hunting of deer and small
animals. Burning of underbrush could have
affected the forest composition and structure, but
the forests were still an impressive resource when
the colonists arrived [35]. Archeologists working
in the area of Narragansett Bay postulate that
land management and the utilization of increased
number of species occurred because of an
increase in the population just before European
contact. In the last period before European
contact (1000 to 400 BP), the decrease in shell
size at the Greenwich Cove archeological site
indicates that the local populations of shellfish
could have been affected by human harvesting.
Loss of beavers (due to the fur trade), and
consequently beaver dams, might have caused an
increase in the amount of sediment entering the
bay. However, the ecological effect of prehistoric
peoples and Native Americans on Greenwich Bay
were minimal compared to what was to come.
8 Imprint of the Past
-------
Colonial Period - c. isso to c. 1750
First Settlers
The first European settlement on Narragansett
Bay was established at Providence in
1636 by Roger Williams, who came from the
Bay Colony (Massachusetts). Two years later
Aquidneck Island was purchased from the
Native Americans and a settlement established.
The third settlement in Rhode Island, the first
in the Greenwich Bay watershed, was Warwick.
In January 1643, Samuel Gorton bought about
90 sq. miles of land, the Shawomet Purchase,
which included most of present-day Warwick,
West Warwick, and Coventry, from the Indian
sachems Miantonomi and Pomham [15]. The
initial settlement at Mill Creek was short-lived,
but Gorton returned and settled near the head of
Warwick Cove in 1647; the town was chartered as
one of the four towns in Providence Plantations
in 1648 [15]. In 1654, Warwick purchased the
rest of Potowomut Neck from Taccomanan,
the local sachem [15]. Potowomut was divided
into shares but none of the owners moved
there initially because it was a favorite hunting
ground for the Native Americans. However, the
colonists harvested hay from the meadows on
Potowomut Neck and shipped it across the bay to
Old Warwick, at the head of Warwick Cove [15].
Conflicts with the Native Americans kept the
first settlements in the Greenwich Bay water-
shed small. Between 1647 and 1676, settlement
in Warwick was confined to a small village
at the head of Warwick Cove and the "four
mile common"—the area from the village to
present-day Apponaug [15]. It was not until
after King Philip's War (1675-76), when many
Native Americans were killed and the tribes'
power destroyed, that colonial settlement
around Greenwich Bay increased. The town of
Greenwich, which included present-day East
and West Greenwich, was incorporated in
1677. Cowesett Farms, on the western end of
Greenwich Bay, was divided into parcels in 1684.
Settlers moved to Potowomut Neck starting in
1684 [15].
Subsistence Farmers
The early settlers in the watershed were
subsistence farmers. They cleared land to raise
livestock (cattle, sheep, and hogs) and to grow
food crops like corn, beans and squash. They
left some land for woodlots and planted some
land as orchards for apple cider. Farming
practices resulted in an open landscape of
pastures, hay fields, wetland meadows, tilled
land, stone walls, and scattered but intensively
cut wooded areas [36]. The early dirt roads were
often muddy and impassable so transport by
water (larger rivers or the bay) was common.
A source of clean fresh water was important
to the early settlers; most homesteads were
built near a running stream or spring, and
a steadily running stream was valuable as a
source of power for grist and saw mills [37].
Small villages built up around these mills.
In 1696 John Micarter built a fulling mill at
Apponaug and a village was established there.
Fulling, the process of scouring woven woolen
cloth to make it stronger, requires "fuller's
earth" or clay, which separates oil and grease
from sheep's wool, and a good supply of clean
water. Apponaug was the site of both: soil in the
area contained fuller's earth, and Gorton Pond
and Apponaug Brook supplied plenty of clean
water [38]. The early fulling mills consisted of
a wheel with pestles and stampers on it. Cloth
was placed in a trough with fuller's earth, beaten
with the pestles, and then rinsed clean. The
Colonial
-------
proprietors of Warwick gave John Micarter
permission to dig "a trench at the entrance of
Kekamewit [Apponaug] brooke [sic] to raise it
sufficiently" and "to raise Cowesett [Gorton]
pond two feet if the occasion be for it" [32].
Population
It is difficult to assess the exact human
population of the watershed because population
records are kept by town, not by watershed.
Before 1740, the population of the towns was
small and the land area large. From 1708 to 1730
the population of Warwick (which included
present-day Warwick, West Warwick, and
Coventry) increased by about two and a half
times, from 480 to 1,178, and the population
of Greenwich (which included present-day
East and West Greenwich) increased about
five times, from 240 to 1,223 [39]. Prior to
1740, before West Greenwich split off from
East Greenwich (1740) and Coventry split off
from Warwick (1741), only a small percentage
of land from each town was in the watershed,
3.3% for Greenwich and 18.3% for Warwick.
Thus, assuming a fairly even distribution of
people within each town, the population of the
watershed during the Colonial Period was small.
Fishing Resources
Just as the Native Americans relied on fish and
shellfish, so did the colonists. The importance
of fishing was reflected in colonial documents.
The 1663 charter granted by King Charles II of
England, incorporating the colony of Rhode
Island and Providence Plantations, included a
public right to harvest fish and shellfish [40, 41].
In 1719, "the Warwick assembly empowered
the town council to protect and improve fishing
in their rivers, forbidding the setting of weirs,
dams or nets" that would impede the migration
offish up the rivers [40]. In 1731, the Rhode
Island colony passed an act to encourage the
cod and whale fisheries by offering a bounty of
5 shillings a quintal (hundredweight or 100 Ib)
for codfish, 5 shillings for a barrel of whale oil,
and one penny a pound for whale bone [40]. In
East Greenwich two laws were passed to protect
oysters [40]. Colonists were harvesting oysters
in large quantities for just the shells, which were
burned to produce lime for making masonry
mortar. The Colonial Assembly thought this
was wasteful, and in 1734, an act was passed
to prevent the harvesting of oysters strictly
for the shells. By 1766, it was recognized that
oyster beds were being over fished, and an act
forbidding the taking of oysters by drags or
any other way except tongs was passed [40]. No
data on oysters in Greenwich Bay exist so it is
not known how abundant they were during the
Colonial Period. Quahogs were valued by the
colonists for their meat and shells, which were
used as scrapers, paint-holders, and spoons [40].
Summary of the Colonial Period
During colonial settlement (c. 1650 to c. 1750),
land clearing most likely would have caused
ecological effects on the bay and its watershed.
Land clearing can change the stability and
filtering capacity of soil and can cause increased
erosion, resulting in increased input of sediment
and nutrients into adjacent water bodies.
Alterations in the hydrology can also influence
vegetation on land. There are no measurements
of the amount of land cleared in the watershed,
but estimates of forest area have been made for
the whole state. About 90-95% of Rhode Island
was forested in the early 1600s before colonial
settlement [42]. According to one estimate,
Rhode Island had about 78% of its area as forest
in 1700, about 57% in 1790, about 54% in 1820,
and a minimum of about 34% in 1850 [42]. Other
researchers estimated that about one third of
forested land in the state was cleared by 1700,
about 65% by the late 1700s, and about 75% by
the mid 1800s [43]. In a study of sedimentation
rates in upper Chesapeake Bay, the highest
sedimentation rates coincided with major storms
and with intensive land clearing when more
than 20% of the watershed was deforested and
cultivated [44]. Although we don't have data for
the watershed, it is very likely that by 1700 more
than 20% of the Greenwich Bay watershed was
cleared, and thus sedimentation rates would have
increased. Although there is no specific mention
of a dam on Apponaug Brook, John Micarter had
permission to alter the stream, and it is likely
that a dam was built at the site of his fulling mill
in Apponaug. This would have been the first
dam in the watershed. These early dams were
usually low and not permanent, thus the effect
on streams and fish would have been transient.
10 Imprint of the Past
-------
Maritime Period - c. 1730 to c. 1320
A though agriculture continued to sustain
the population of the watershed, a number
of factors influenced the growth of maritime
activities. In the 1690s, the Rhode Island colony
granted commissions to privateers, who were
allowed to keep nine-tenths of the spoils obtained
from attacking French and Spanish ships; young
men from the farms were attracted to this
seafaring life. In the mid 1700s, the population
along the coast was reaching its natural limits
for agriculture as good land for farming became
scarce [45]. The agricultural economy had
fostered other trades: tanners, coopers, weavers,
blacksmiths, and shipbuilders [46]. As farming
became more successful there was a need to
transport the excess farm goods. Small sloops
were used along the coast to move goods to and
from larger ports. Coastal trade was centered
in the smaller ports like East Greenwich and
Apponaug, while larger ports like Newport,
Providence and Bristol were involved in overseas
trade. By 1790, the state of Rhode Island had
successful shipbuilding, rope making, rum
distilling, and iron industries, which all had
grown to support the maritime economy [45].
Maritime Activities in Apponaug Village
Although Greenwich Bay didn't have a large port,
Apponaug and East Greenwich were the sites of
shipbuilding and participated in local coastal
trade. In the late 1700s and early 1800s, sloops
and schooners were built in Apponaug [32].
Jacob Greene & Company, a store and shipping
center located on Apponaug Cove, imported
coal and black sand, which was used in making
anchors in the family's forges in Coventry and
on Potowomut Neck, and shipped the finished
anchors. In the late 1800s, a local historian
wrote that "Apponaug Cove in early times, was
several feet deeper than at present, sloops of
fifteen tons burden found no difficulty entering
it, and approaching the store of Jacob Green
& Co." [32]. A study conducted in the 1980s
documented the filling in of upper Apponaug
Cove; the researchers found that the upper cove
was a depositional area where silty sand had been
deposited over a long period of time from before
colonization until the cove was developed [47].
The surface sediments in the cove contained coal,
coal ash, and clumps of pigment that had been
deposited since industrialization of the area [47].
In the upper cove a layer of red-brown organic
matter 2 to 4 inches thick occurred at a depth of
10 to 12 inches in the sediment. This layer was
probably sawdust and contained higher levels
of metals and lead than the surface layer. The
researchers reported that this layer was deposited
in the early to mid 1800s. The shipbuilding
and a saw mill located in Apponaug were
likely sources of the sawdust and metals [47].
Other commercial ventures located in Apponaug
included a saw mill, a blacksmith shop, and a
grist mill. In 1796, a tide mill, for grinding corn
and other grains, was built near the bridge on
Post Road near the head of the cove. The Rhode
Island General Assembly gave permission to
build the mill "provided that the mill dam be
made and erected with suitable waste-gates
for venting superfluous water, and in such a
manner as not to back the water or otherwise
injure the mills" upstream [32]. The grist mill
owner also had to "leave open at all proper
times, a suitable passage, not less than sixteen
feet wide, in the small dam, for the passage of
rafts and boats up and down said river" [32].
Maritime 11
-------
Maritime Activities in East Greenwich
The village in East Greenwich was also the
site of shipbuilding, shipping, and maritime
related activities. When the town was platted,
two pieces of land on the waterfront were set
aside for shipyards [48]. In 1725, one piece at
the foot of Queen Street was given to a ship
carpenter provided he would "improve said
land in building of ships" [49]. From 1773 to
1821 eighteen sailing ships were built in East
Greenwich [50]. In 1765 a ropewalk, which
produced rope for maritime activities, was
located on Rope Walk Hill in the area of
Castle Street overlooking Greenwich Cove.
One historian wrote that the ropewalk was an
important business when East Greenwich was
a prosperous commercial port and that "the
air around [the ropewalk] was filled with the
agreeable odor of tar, with which the ropes were
saturated to protect them from salt water" [51].
For a short time, 1809 to 1812, there was a whale
oil works at the foot of Division Street [51].
Wharfs were built along the coastline in East
Greenwich to accommodate shipping activities
and to stabilize the shoreline. Before 1790,
the lower end of King Street had been an
open dock and the tide flowed up as far as the
present railroad bridge [51]. Vast quantities of
sand were being washed down King Street. To
retard the filling in of the cove with this sand,
the Town Council "ordered a wharf 100 feet
long and 40 feet wide built there" [52]. Figure 2
shows the wharf at the foot of King Street on
an 1836 map, the earliest accurate map of the
coastline. Wharfs were also present along the
coast north of King Street to Division Street
as indicated by the artificially straight lines on
the map. Fish, farm, and timber products were
shipped from the wharfs in East Greenwich. In
the late 1700s, Division Street was rebuilt as a
major road extending inland so farmers could
more easily bring products to the harbor [52].
EAST GREE1NWICH
wnx A
VIEW OF THE HARBOR
Coastlines
.^T^I Lockttood 1836
»_. Beers 18711
RIGIS 1997 Shoreline
Figure 2. Greenwich Cove shoreline at East Greenwich for three dates. The map of the village was made by Benoni
Lockwood in 1836 [149]. The 1870 coastline is from the Atlas of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations
by D.G. Beers [63]. The 1997 coastline is from RIGIS, 1:5000 town boundaries.
12 Imprint of the Past
-------
The American Revolution (1775-1783) interrupt-
ed maritime trade, but merchants took advantage
of the opportunity by providing goods needed
during the war. Since British ships were patrol-
ling Narragansett Bay, overland transport of
goods became important, and the villages
in Apponaug and East Greenwich prospered
because of their location on Post Road [53].
The maritime economy recovered quickly after
the Revolution, but was slowed again during
the Embargo of 1807 and the War of 1812.
Population
From 1748 to 1820 the population of the town of
Warwick increased by about 100% (from 1,782
to 3,643) and East Greenwich by about 45%
(from 1,044 to 1,519). Since population numbers
are kept by town, we estimated the population
of the watershed using the "proportion of road
length" method, which is based on a study that
showed higher population density is related
to road density or length [54]. From 1748 to
1820 the estimated population of the total
watershed increased about 88% (from 1,013
to 1,907). Although both Warwick and East
Greenwich were adjacent to Greenwich Bay,
the towns grew at different rates and acquired
their own unique characteristics. Warwick's
diverse geography—beaches along Greenwich
and Narragansett Bay, and waterfalls on the
Pawtuxet River—resulted in the establishment
of a number of villages with no real town center
[15]; whereas the village on Greenwich Cove
became the town center for East Greenwich.
Fisheries
Few data are available about the state of fisheries
in Greenwich Bay in the eighteenth century;
however, a personal description of Apponaug
Cove at about 1800 exists. In a letter dated
1846, but written about his childhood, Oliver C.
Wilber described Apponaug Cove: "Its bridge [at
Post Road] with the tide constantly ebbing and
flowing under it, the nettles, silk weed, eel grass,
the mud flats, the narrow crooked channels of
the cove, the clams, quahogs, scallops, mussels,
winkles, razors, snails, five-fingers, fiddler
crabs, large crabs, horse feet, road fish, grunters,
sharks, dogfish, bass, menhaden, squiteague,
tautog, scup, skipjacks, flatfish, flounders, eels,
mummachogs [sic] that abounded in its waters"
[47]. Historian D. H. Greene wrote in 1877, that
one hundred years ago (1770s) oysters were so
abundant in Greenwich Bay that "the inhabitants
were in the habit of laying in an [sic] hundred
bushels each for winter consumption" [51].
Summary of the Maritime Period
During the Maritime Period (c. 1730 to c.
1820) more land was cleared to accommodate
the growing population, and there were some
changes in the shoreline. We don't have specific
data for the watershed, but in 1700 about 78%
of the land in Rhode Island was forested,
and by 1820 only 54% was forested [42]. As
mentioned above, evidence of sedimentation in
Apponaug Cove was noted by a historian [32]
and confirmed by a scientific study [47]. By 1836
the East Greenwich shoreline was filled in places
and hardened by wharfs. More changes in the
shoreline occurred later, as shown in Figure 2.
Maritime 13
-------
tr[~he excellence and safety of the harbor was a strong inducement
for men of energy and business habits to settle on its shores."
D.M.Greene
14 Imprint of the Past
-------
Industrial Period - c. isoo to c. 1945
The Industrial Revolution started in Britain
in the late eighteenth century when
major changes in agriculture, manufacturing,
transportation, mining, and technology had
profound effects on economic, social and cultural
conditions. The Industrial Revolution spread to
Rhode Island in 1790 with the opening of Slater
Mill in Pawtucket, the first cotton mill run by
water power in the country. Topography and
climate in Rhode Island were ideal for textile
manufacturing [45]. Many narrow streams were
amenable to dam construction for water power,
and the fairly even seasonal distribution of rain
provided water for power year-round. The soft
water was good for washing and bleaching cloth,
and dyes took easily. Also, the relatively high
humidity kept the fibers supple for spinning
without breaking [45]. The textile industry
was dominant in Rhode Island's economy
from 1800 to the mid-1900s [46]. Base and
precious metal industries, which were located
primarily in Providence,
were also important to the
state's economy [46]. Many
of these industries produced
machinery for the textile
mills. The capital and business
skills accumulated during
the Maritime Period put
Rhode Island merchants in a
good position to finance the
emerging textile industry [46].
Most of the mills were built along the Pawtuxet
River, outside the Greenwich Bay watershed.
Within the watershed, a cotton mill was located
in Apponaug in 1809 at the site of the former
fulling mill (Fig. 3). Over the years this textile
mill expanded, changed ownership, and was
known most recently as the Apponaug Company.
Between 1920 and 1928, Apponaug Company
replaced almost all the old mill buildings, in spite
of difficult economic times. The New England
textile industry was not doing well; however,
Apponaug Company was expanding because
it had "specialized in developing innovative
dyeing, printing, and finishing techniques" [15].
Skilled color chemists and a good supply of
clear water from Gorton Pond enabled the
Apponaug Company to enlarge its business [53].
It was a leader in producing synthetic and
synthetic-natural blend fabrics and was the first
company in the U.S. to produce wash and wear
no-iron fabric [15]. Despite these successes,
Industries in the
Watershed
In Warwick a number of
textile mills were built in
the 1790s and early 1800s.
Apponaug Company, 1917. The mill at Apponaug operated undervarious names:
Manchester Manufacturing Company, 1809 to 1850s; Oriental Printworks, 1859 to 1883;
Apponaug Print Works, 1896 to 1913; and Apponaug Company, 1913 to 1958. These old
buildings were replaced in the 1920s as the mill expanded under the direction of Alfred J.
Lustig, a skilled chemist and president of the company. With new innovations in dyeing,
finishing, and fabric blends, Apponaug Company became a leader in the textile industry.
(Warwick Historical Society)
Industrial 15
-------
Apponaug Company closed in 1958, and a fire
in 1969 destroyed most of the buildings [38].
Several textile mills and textile-related
companies were located in East Greenwich
within the Greenwich Bay watershed (Table 2,
Fig. 3). The largest and longest operating
textile company in East Greenwich was the
Greene Dale Bleachery, which opened in 1840
on the Maskerchugg River near the head of
Greenwich Cove [55]. Generations of residents,
many of them skilled immigrants, worked
at the Bleachery [50]. This textile finishing
plant operated under various names until it
was closed in 1960. At one time there were 14
buildings [55], but today the only reminder of
this once large mill complex is Bleachery Pond.
Other early industries in East Greenwich
included metalworking companies, coal and
lumber yards, and shipyards (Table 2, Fig. 3).
The 1891 Sanborn Fire Insurance Map [56]
showed a boat builder on the shore just north of
Division Street. Over the years it was called by
a number of names—Saunders Boat Yard, F.S.
Nock, Inc., Harris & Parsons Inc., Beetle Boat
Co., and since 1966, Norton's Shipyard & Marina,
one of the larger marinas on Greenwich Bay
Table 2. Early textile and metalworking industries within the Greenwich Bay watershed in East Greenwich and in
the section of Warwick just north of the town line.
Name
Textiles
Dawson Mill
East Greenwich
Manufacturing Co. 1
Pollard Mill2
Phoenix Woolen Co.
Yarn Mill 3
Union Mill
(later Orion Mill)
Providence Drysalters 4
Hercules Powder
Farrington Mill 5
Green Dale Bleachery 6
Location
Main & Division St.
King & Water St.
Division & Duane St.
King & Duke St.
Greene, Liberty,
Union, & Main St.
Greene, Liberty,
Union, & Main St.
Greene, Liberty,
Union, & Main St.
Foot of Division St.
Post Rd & Cedar Ave
Start
1790
1828
1836
1870
1836
1894
1939
1905
1840
End Date
Early 1800s
1920s
1941
Early 1890s
1894
1939
1946
c. 1940
1960
Comments
First cotton print works in the
country
First steam powered cotton
mill in Rl
Woolen mill, dye house
Dye house, carding and spinning
Made broad cloth, printed cloth
Made paper coatings, textile
chemicals, soap
Division of E. I. DuPont - made
dyes used in WWII uniforms
Made dextrin for calico printing,
cloth finishes, adhesives for shoes
Textile finishing plant
References
[52]
[46]
[46] [55]
[62] [56] [63]
[55]
[55]
[55]
[55]
[55]
Metalworking
Asa Arnold Machine
Shop
Ferricup Metal Corp.
Boston Wire Stitcher7
Marlborough &
Division St.
Foot of Division St.
Division & Duane St.
1845
1889
1904
c. 1870
1905
1946
Made machinery for textile mills,
and for making fishing nets
Metalworking and plating
Made wire staples
[49] [55]
[55]
[55]
1 also operated under other names: Shore Mill, Bay Mill, and Elizabeth Mill [55]
2 also operated under other names: Phoenix Mill, Greenwich Worsted Mill, and Greenwich Mills
3 unnamed dye house on 1870 Beers map [63]; Phoenix Woolen Co. Yarn Mill on 1884 and 1891 Sanborn maps [62, 56]
4 Providence Drysalters and then Hercules Powder successively occupied the buildings of Union/Orion Mill
5 Farrington Mill occupied Ferricup Metal Corporation building in 1905
6 during this time also operated under other names: Bolton Manufacturing, Bourne Bleachery, Greenwich
Bleachery, and Greenwich Printing and Dyeing Company
7 Boston Wire Stitcher was the precursor of Bostitch. After a short period located elsewhere, Bostitch moved,
in 1957, to its present location on Route 2 in East Greenwich.
16 Imprint of the Past
-------
ItHlmtitat:
• Coal / Lumber
X Metal Working
A Metal Working: Chemicals
if Shipyard
Shipyard; Coal / Lumber
• Textile Mill
Core Sites (Corbin. 1989)
Roads(1868)
<—- Slonington Railroad
Shoreline (1868)
Chcpiwanoxtl
Island
East
Greenwich
Figure 3. Location of industries in the Greenwich Bay watershed
from 1800 to about 1920. Coastline and roads are from two 1868
maps [150, 151]. Core sites mark the location of the 2 sediment
cores taken by Corbin [78].
[57, 58]. From 1900 to 1926, when the shipyard
was owned by Mr. Nock, Coast Guard Picket
boats were built there [58]. During World War II,
the shipyard then known as Harris & Parsons,
built eight Sub-Chaser boats for the war effort
[58]. In 1909 the East Greenwich Yacht Club
was established just south of this shipyard.
Another industry in the Greenwich Bay
watershed, the Gallaudet Engineering Company,
was established in 1910 to build airplanes. The
founder Edson Gallaudet, a contemporary of
the Wright Brothers, was experimenting in
aerodynamics in the late 1890s. The company
was located on Chepiwanoxet Point, formerly
an island (Fig. 3). About 1915, fill was dumped
into the marsh and a causeway was built
that connected the island to the mainland to
facilitate access to the factory [59]. In 1917 the
company reorganized as Gallaudet Aircraft
The Bleachery, East Greenwich. Today, no trace of this
large mill complex remains. A church, a small office
building, and trees now occupy the site at the corner of
Post Road and Cedar Avenue. (Bruce MacGunnigle,
private collection)
Inside the Green Dale Bleachery. Generations of residents
worked here. (East Greenwich Historic Preservation Society)
Postcard of Gallaudet Aircraft Corporation. This company,
which was built on Chepiwanoxet Point in 1915, made sea-
planes for the U.S. Navy during World War I. The buildings
were lost in the 1938 hurricane. The site is now maintained
as an undeveloped park by the city of Warwick.
(Bruce MacGunnigle, private collection)
Industrial 17
-------
Corporation and built seaplanes for the
U.S. Navy for use in World War I [60, 61].
The company was bought by Consolidated
Aircraft in 1923 and moved to Buffalo [61].
Until the 1960s Chepiwanoxet Point was
the site of an industrial area and marina [7].
In 1994, Warwick bought the property to
protect it from development, and it is now
maintained as an undeveloped public park [7].
Population
Industrialization changed the social
structure and pattern of development
of the watershed. The population in
the towns increased greatly during
this time as people moved into the
area to work in the mills and other
industries. Many of the workers
were immigrants (Irish, Swedish,
French-Canadians, and others)
and this influx changed the ethnic
makeup of the villages. Until the mid
1800s, the settlers had been mostly
of English origin. In East Greenwich,
Swedish immigrants settled by
Rector and West Streets, an area
called "Sweedie Hill," and Italians
occupied houses along Duke, Queen,
King, and Marlborough Streets [52].
Apponaug village expanded due to the
influx of mill workers, and became
Warwick's civic center when the
town hall was moved there in 1835
from Old Warwick, at the head of
Warwick Cove. Between 1810 and
1910 the population of Warwick
increased about seven-fold (3,757
to 26,629), while East Greenwich's
population increased only about
two-fold (1,530 to 3,420) (Fig. 4).
At the turn of the century most of
Warwick's industry was located in
the western third of the town along
the Pawtuxet River, while the eastern
portion (in the Greenwich Bay
watershed) was primarily agricultural,
shore resorts, and the start of some
suburban plats [15]. In 1913, the
different needs of the citizens in
the two sections of Warwick led
100-,
80-
to a division of the town; the western section
split off to form West Warwick. Warwick's
population dropped in the 1920 census after the
split, but quickly recovered; by 1950 Warwick's
population was 43,028. East Greenwich was
expanding more slowly, and had only 4,923
residents in 1950. Between 1810 and 1950, the
estimated population in the watershed increased
13-fold from about 1,900 to 25,500 (Fig. 5).
Warwick
Year
Figure 4. Population of the three towns surrounding Greenwich Bay
from 1800to2000.
Total Watershed
Year
Figure 5. Estimated population of Greenwich Bay watershed and the
portions of the towns within the watershed. Population estimates were
made based on the proportion of roads within the watershed (see text).
18 Imprint of the Past
-------
Transportation
Patterns of transportation within the watershed
changed during the early 1800s, and that had
an effect on businesses and settlement. In 1816,
the New London Turnpike (a toll road) was built
from Providence to New London, Connecticut.
From New London goods and people traveled to
New York by boat. The New London Turnpike
followed a route through western Rhode Island
that bypassed the villages of Apponaug and
East Greenwich [52]. In 1837 the Stonington
Railroad was completed, connecting Providence
to Stonington, Connecticut. The section of the
railroad through the watershed ran parallel to
Post Road, going through East Greenwich and
Apponaug; this brought a focus back to these
villages that had been missing when travel
had been along the New London Turnpike
[52]. Goods and people traveled from Boston
to Stonington by rail and then by boat to New
York. The railroad eliminated much of the
need for marine transport along the coast.
In 1893, requests to the U.S. Army Chief of
Engineers to dredge Apponaug and Greenwich
Coves to permit deeper draft boats into the
harbors were refused because there was little
commercial need. The coal and cotton destined
for the mills on the Pawtuxet River in Warwick
were being unloaded in Providence Harbor
and transported by rail [64]. However, two
years earlier, the Army Engineers had dredged
the sand bar off Long Point at the mouth of
Greenwich Cove to straighten and widen the
channel and make navigation easier [65].
The process of building the railroad had
ecological and social consequences for Greenwich
Bay and its watershed. Extensive excavations
were made through two hills in East Greenwich
(Rope Walk Hill and Meeting House Hill) to
make a level grade for the railroad tracks [52].
Most likely, sediment was washed down the hill
into Greenwich Cove during this excavation.
A railroad bridge was constructed across the
upper section of Apponaug Cove. Fill was
used at the site of the bridge and narrowed the
opening across the cove forming an inner and
outer section of the cove. The constriction of
the bridge accelerated the tidal flow under it,
Railroad bridge crossing King Street, East Greenwich. King
Street, which goes down the hill to the waterfront, was the
main street in East Greenwich until the time of the Civil War.
King Street lies between two hills, Meeting House Hill to the
north and Rope Walk Hill to the south. Excavation through
these hills for the railroad caused sediment to wash down
into the cove. (Bruce MacGunnigle, private collection)
scouring sand from the channel and depositing
it in a bar west of the bridge [47]. Pollution from
coal-burning locomotives probably led to higher
concentrations of lead, zinc, and copper in the
soil along the railroad and water at the bridge
[66]. The railroad also influenced the social
fabric of the both communities because many
Irish immigrants were brought in to build it.
Local railroads and trolleys had an effect on the
pattern of development in the watershed, and
led to the beginning of suburban development in
Warwick [15]. As the population of Providence
increased with increasing industrialization, there
was a need for factory workers to have a place to
spend their day off. Warwick became that place.
Steam boats had been bringing workers for day
trips to Rocky Point (outside the watershed)
and to Nausauket (Buttonwoods) on the north
shore of Greenwich Bay for picnicking, bathing,
clamming, and holding clambakes since the
mid 1800s. In 1865 the Union Railroad (using
horse-drawn vehicles) was established from
Providence to Warwick, making travel easier. The
Warwick Railroad, completed in 1874, branched
off the Stonington Railroad at Cranston, and
ran south on Warwick Neck, across the mouth
of Warwick Cove to Oakland Beach. In 1881, it
was extended across the mouth of Brush Neck
Cove to Buttonwoods. In the early 1900s the
railroad was replaced by an electric trolley line.
Industrial 19
-------
Aerial photo of Oakland Beach, c. 1920. The Warwick Railroad carried
passengers across the trestles at the mouth of Warwick Cove (top right)
to Oakland Beach and then across the mouth of Brush Neck Cove
(middle left) to Buttonwoods. Passenger service on the trolley ended in
1935, and the 1938 hurricane destroyed the trestles. The 1938 hurricane
also destroyed the amusement park and many shorefront buildings.
(Warwick Historical Society)
concept of Buttonwoods was to provide
summer recreational and religious
activities in a "wholesome, respectable
environment," in contrast to the livelier
summer playground at Oakland Beach
[16]. Around the turn of the century,
Buttonwoods Campground was
established west of Buttonwoods Beach
Association by philanthropist Henry
Warner Budlong as a place for working-
class city residents to enjoy summer
by the shore [16]. Wealthy families
built country estates on Warwick Neck
[15]. In the early 1900s, Buttonwoods
began to transition from a summer
colony to a year-round community.
This pattern of expansion in the late
1800s and early 1900s was the precursor
of the urbanization that boomed
after the end of World War II [15].
Trolley crossing Warwick Cove. About 1900 the trains to Oakland
Beach were replaced by electrified trolleys. The middle section
of the trestle over Warwick Cove was a drawbridge that allowed
boats to pass. (Warwick Historical Society)
The railroads and trolleys facilitated the
development of the shore resorts. The Oakland
Beach Hotel was built in the early 1870s and
amusement attractions were added, but few
summer houses were built until the trolley
made travel more convenient [15]. In 1871, the
congregation of Providence's Cranston Street
Baptist Church bought land at Nausauket to
establish a summer colony. They formed the
Buttonwoods Beach Association, built the
Buttonwoods Hotel, and established a cottage
colony modeled after the Methodist campground
at Oak Bluffs, Martha's Vineyard [16]. The
One area of the watershed that was saved from
intense development was Potowomut Neck,
which was located south of Greenwich Bay and
not conveniently reached by trolley lines. Land
on Potowomut had been owned by the members
of the Greene family since Colonial times. In
the late 1700s ownership passed to the Brown
and Ives families, and later to their relatives, the
Russell and Goddard families. These wealthy
families established estates there. In 1876, the
Russell family built their home, The Oaks, on
land located in present-day Goddard Memorial
State Park. Henry Russell liked trees. He raised
evergreen tree seedlings and planted them along
the eastern bank of Greenwich Cove, and planted
oak and other hardwood trees on the estate [27].
In 1911, Robert H.I. Goddard inherited The
Oaks from his cousin, Mrs. Russell. In 1927,
Goddard's son and daughter donated The Oaks
and surrounding property to the State of Rhode
Island to be used as a public recreational park
in memory of their father [27]. Today, the tree-
lined eastern shoreline of Greenwich Cove is in
sharp contrast to the marinas and commercial
development on the western (East Greenwich)
side. The 489-acre park, which includes a nine-
hole golf course, picnic areas, beach, and riding
trails, is a popular attraction in the watershed.
20 Imprint of the Past
-------
Infrastructure
The increase in population and industrialization
brought a need for infrastructure within the
watershed. Until the 1880s, drinking water in
the watershed was supplied by springs or wells,
but the increasing population created a need
to supply water to the more densely populated
villages. In 1886, the East Greenwich Water
Company laid cast iron pipes from a large
well near the Hunt River to East Greenwich
village [67]. In 1890, the Warwick and Coventry
Water Company was established to supply
water to Apponaug and Crompton, and in
1929, Warwick developed a city-wide water
distribution system [66]. By 1950 the water
demand had grown and the county-wide
Kent County Water Authority was formed by
purchasing three private companies—Warwick
and Coventry Water Company, East Greenwich
Water Company, and Pawtuxet Valley Water
Company [68]. An abundant supply of water
permitted people to install water closets
(toilets) in their homes. This new convenience
caused health problems in densely built areas.
Before sewers were installed, water closets
were connected to cesspools, which frequently
overflowed as the soil became saturated with
the increased flow of piped-in water [69].
With the increased number of people and the
availability of recently piped-in water, sewers
were proposed for East Greenwich in 1893 (Fig. 6)
[70]. The proposed plan placed a sewer on every
street in the area bounded by First Avenue,
Kenyon Avenue, Division and William Streets,
and the shoreline of Greenwich Cove. Overflows
were planned at the foot of Division Street, the
Buttonwoods Beach, c. late 1800s.
This scene looking west shows
Promenade Avenue running along
the shore with a grassy area and
beach to the left (south) of the then
dirt road. The Buttonwoods Hotel
(with flag, on right) was located at the
head of Beach Park Avenue. Land at
Buttonwoods was eroded during the
1938 hurricane. As a result, today, the
beach at Buttonwoods is essentially
gone, and the shoreline has been
hardened. (Picturesque America,
1872)
foot of King Street, at the location of the present
wastewater treatment facility (WWTF), and at
the foot of Rocky Hollow Road. The plan was
implemented in stages. The first sewer lines were
installed in 1896 and 1897 [71, 72]. More sewer
lines were added over time (Fig. 6). The outfall for
the sewer lines emptied directly into Greenwich
Cove at the foot of King Street. In 1928 the
first WWTF was built, and an interceptor line
connected the sewer lines to the plant. The
original plant provided primary treatment of
sewage—Imhoff tanks for the settlement of
solids and anaerobic digestion of sludge [73].
The outflow from the plant was into Greenwich
Cove. The WWTF was upgraded in 1956 to a
secondary treatment facility with trickling filters
and chlorination [73]. Sewers and a WWTF
were not installed in Warwick until 1965.
However, the Warwick WWTF, on the Pawtuxet
River, and the first sewer lines in Warwick
were outside the Greenwich Bay watershed.
Pollution
Industries offer jobs and economic benefits,
but can pollute the air, water, and land. Before
the enactment of environmental regulations
in the 1970s, industries disposed of wastes
directly into nearby water bodies or sewers,
and emitted chemicals into the air. Textile
companies were the sources of a variety of
chemical pollutants. Wastewater from bleaching
and dyeing processes contained metals (in the
dyes and mordants), acids, and bleaches. The
machinery in textile mills was a source of grease
and oils. Metalworking industries and shipyards
were sources of metals, acids, and petroleum
hydrocarbons (organic compounds found in
Industrial 21
-------
Sewer Lines
— IS96 - 189?
--• 1910 - 1924
1940s- lySns
Interceptor 1928
WWTF
Railroad
Figure 6. Sewer lines in East Greenwich installed from 1896 to the 1950s. The base map is the Preliminary Plan for
a System of Sewers at East Greenwich, Rhode Island, 1893 [70]. Sewer lines shown for the various dates are from
maps located in the Clerk's Office, East Greenwich Town Hall. The interceptor line and first wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) were built in 1928. Before 1928 the sewer lines emptied directly into Greenwich Cove.
oils, petroleum fuels, solvents, and grease).
Industries also emitted polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs) from wood and coal
combustion [74], and arsenic [75] and mercury
[76] from coal combustion. Many of the mills
in East Greenwich used steam-power to run
the machinery, and burned coal to produce the
steam [50]. The increase in people and industries
within the watershed increased the sewage and
chemicals flowing into Greenwich Bay. Historical
data have shown that between 1800 and 1945
the sediments in the bay were contaminated,
and water quality of the bay was affected by
chemical pollution, bacterial pollution, and in
Apponaug Cove, hypoxia (low oxygen levels).
The first study of pollution in Greenwich Bay,
conducted in 1861 by the Rhode Island Shellfish
Commission, cited pollution of the water by
textile companies as a problem [66]. Goode
and Associates [40] wrote about Apponaug
Cove—"of late years the (fishing) business has
largely decreased. The fishermen claim that
chemicals and refuse from the large print-works
have driven away the fish and killed every
clam in the immediate vicinity of the town."
Chemicals used in textile companies before the
1930s include: alumina, copper, iron, zinc, nickel,
lead, chromium, tin, barium, magnesium, and
acids [66]. When interviewed in 1980, retired
workers from the Apponaug Company said
most of the plant's liquid waste was disposed
of in Apponaug Brook, which emptied into the
head of Apponaug Cove [47]. The workers listed
chemical wastes that were generated in the latter
years of the plant's operation: bleaches and
oxidizing agents, organic chemicals, pigments
and mordants containing metals, and oils from
the machinery [47]. A resident of the watershed
remembers as a child (in the 1950s) seeing the
color of Apponaug Cove water as "whatever dye
color the Apponaug Mill was using that day"
[77]. In Greenwich Cove there were similar
stories: "kids in the 1930s and 1940s used to
22 Imprint of the Past
-------
work (Greenwich) Cove for extra money, but
they never knew what color the shellfish were
going to be—it all depended on what color the
Bleachery (a textile finishing plant) was using
that day" [77]. The shipyards and metalworking
companies in East Greenwich, Apponaug, and
on Chepiwanoxet Point were likely sources
of metals and petroleum hydrocarbons. The
Industrial Period was a time of significant
unregulated pollution input to Greenwich Bay.
Sediment Contamination
Sediments record the history of contamination
in estuaries. Many contaminants adsorb
to sediment particles, which get moved by
currents and settle in areas of low water flow.
Contaminants in surface sediments generally
reflect recent events, whereas contaminants
found deeper in the sediment correspond to past
events. Sediment cores can be used to reveal
the history of contamination. The cores are
sliced horizontally and the slices are analyzed
for contaminants and markers (to determine
age). Various methods are used to determine the
age of the core slices. When the concentrations
of contaminants in the core slices are plotted
by date, the resulting profile shows the history
of contamination in the estuary. This is not
an exact science; sediments can be eroded
and resuspended, or disturbed by benthic
animals, and the dating is not exact. However,
sediment profiles can indicate an approximate
history of contamination, particularly when
taken from a relatively undisturbed site.
Analysis of sediment cores has shown that the
sediment in Greenwich Bay is contaminated
with metals and organic compounds. Two
researchers examined metal contaminants in
sediment cores taken from Apponaug Cove
and the middle of Greenwich Bay (Fig. 3) [66,
78]. They both found that contaminants in the
Apponaug Cove core matched the history of
anthropogenic input from the textile mill in
Apponaug. The Greenwich Bay core also reflected
the history of contaminants from the mill in
Apponaug, but because it was further from
the mill, the concentrations of contaminants
were lower, and it also contained contaminants
from other sources. For example, in the core
from Apponaug Cove the concentration of
chromium, a metal used in textile dyes and
mordants, started to rise above background
concentration between 1870 and 1880 (Fig. 7).
After 1880 the concentration increased more
rapidly, with a decrease about 1910, followed
by an increase to 1920, dipped in the 1930s,
reached a maximum concentration about 1950,
2000
Chromium (Cr) ug/g
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0
1980-
1960-
1940-
n
£ 1920-
I 1900-
2 1880-
1860
1840-
1820-
1800
Copper (Cu)
50 100 150 200 250 0
Apponaug Cove
Greenwich Bay
Lead (Pb) ug/g
50 100 150 200 250
Apponaug Cove
Greenwich Bay
Apponaug Cove
Greenwich Bay
Figure 7. Profiles of chromium, copper, and lead concentrations in sediment cores taken from Apponaug Cove
and Greenwich Bay. Data from Corbin [78].
Industrial 23
-------
and then decreased rapidly to the top of the
core (1980s). This profile reflects the expansion
of the mill in the late 1800s, an unexplained
dip about 1910 followed by a rise, the economic
recession and replacement of most of the mill
buildings in the 1920s and 1930s, and the end of
the mill operation in 1958. The sediment profile
for copper, another metal used in textile dyeing,
was similar: the copper concentration increased
in the late 1800s, dipped in the 1920s and 1930s,
reached the maximum concentration about 1950,
and then decreased (Fig. 7). The core from the
middle of Greenwich Bay also showed increases
in chromium and copper concentrations in the
late 1800s and had maximum concentrations
in 1940-50; but the maximum concentrations
were lower, about 5-fold for chromium and one
half for copper, than those in Apponaug Cove
(Fig. 7). Chromium readily binds to sediment
particles. So chromium discharged from the
mill in the wastewater would bind to sediment
particles, which settled out in Apponaug Cove,
leaving less chromium to reach the middle of
Greenwich Bay. Copper does not bind as readily
to sediment particulates, so more copper would
be carried further from the mill. This might
account for the smaller difference in maximum
concentrations of copper for the two cores.
The concentrations of chromium and copper
in the Greenwich Bay core decreased only
slightly from the maximum concentration,
indicating that there were other sources of
these metals besides the mill in Apponaug.
Sediments in the middle of Greenwich Bay
were also exposed to contaminants from the
East Greenwich WWTF and industries in
East Greenwich and on Chepiwanoxet Point.
The concentration of lead started increasing
in the cores in the 1870s and continued to
increase (steadily in the Greenwich Bay core
but more variably in the Apponaug Cove core)
until about the 1970s, when there was a small
decrease to the top of the core (Fig. 7). Lead
was used in textile production, but the textile
industry was not a major source of this metal.
In the late 1800s, lead, and also copper, started
to increase rapidly in the environment from
the burning of coal [79]. Leaded gasoline, a
major source of lead, was used from the 1920s
to the 1970s. The slight decrease in lead at the
surface of the cores probably resulted from the
phaseout of leaded gasoline that began in 1973.
Grab samples of surface sediments, taken in
various locations in Greenwich Bay in 2003 [80],
had concentrations of chromium, copper, and
lead that were similar to the concentrations at
the top of the cores taken in the 1980s, indicating
no major change, decrease or increase, for these
particular contaminants. Data from one grab
sample taken in the middle of Greenwich Bay are
shown in Figure 13 (on the sediment quality line).
How do the concentrations of metals in
Greenwich Bay sediments compare with those
from other locations in Narragansett Bay?
Table 3 lists the highest concentrations of
chromium, copper, and lead in the Apponaug
and Greenwich Bay cores and the concentrations
of those metals that were found at four other
locations from the same study [78] during the
same time periods (1940-50s for chromium and
copper, 1970-80s for lead). With the exception of
the chromium concentration in the Apponaug
Cove core, the concentrations of metals in the
Greenwich Bay and Apponaug Cove cores were
two to three times higher than those from two
relatively clean stations mid bay (Calf Pasture
Point, Ohio Ledge), but considerably lower
Table 3. Comparison of historical metal concentrations in
sediment cores from Greenwich Bay and Narragansett Bay.
The highest concentrations in the Apponaug and Greenwich
Bay cores are listed. Values for chromium and copper for
these two cores date from the 1940-50s, and values for lead
are from the 1970-80s. Concentrations for the other four
cores are taken from similar time periods (1950s for chromium
and copper, and 1970-80s for lead). The upper Narragansett
Bay sampling locations were in close proximity to Providence,
a major industrial area. Data are from Corbin [78].
Location
Upper Narragansett Bay
Seekonk River
Fox Point
ireenwich Bay
Apponaug Cove
Greenwich Bay
Mid-Narragansett Bay
Ohio Ledge
Calf Pasture Point
Chromium
H9/9
»y
850
490
Copper
ng/g
2558
1625
Lead
H-9/9
812
517
24 Imprint of the Past
-------
than concentrations measured in the upper
Narragansett Bay cores (Seekonk River, Fox
Point), which were taken near Providence, a
highly industrialized area (Table 3). This is
consistent with a number of scientific studies
that have analyzed concentrations of pollutants
in Narragansett Bay sediments, showing a
gradient of concentrations down bay with
the highest concentrations in the upper bay
closest to Providence, a highly industrialized
and urban area, and the lowest concentrations
at the mouth of the bay [78, 80, 81].
Organic compounds have also been measured
in sediments in Greenwich Bay, including the
same two sediment cores from Apponaug Cove
and the middle of Greenwich Bay mentioned
above [82]. In both cores, sediment profiles of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs, produced from
1929 to 1977), PAHs (by-products of petroleum
processing and incomplete combustion of fossil
fuels), and aliphatic hydrocarbons (another
class of organic compounds) each reached a
maximum concentration below the surface
and then decreased to the surface (1980s). This
indicates that input of these contaminants has
been declining, most likely due to improved
wastewater treatment, a change in public
attitude toward releasing petroleum wastes into
the environment, and a ban on PCBs in 1978.
Concentrations of these organic compounds
were considerable lower (3 to 10-fold) in
Apponaug Cove and Greenwich Bay than those
measured in cores from upper Narragansett Bay.
Another group of researchers measured organic
compounds in a different core from Apponaug
Cove [83]. The distribution of chemicals in this
core indicated that there was a disturbance in the
deposition of sediments at this particular site,
but the results indicated past contamination of
the sediment with DDT (a pesticide produced
from 1940 to 1972), PCBs, and PAHs.
How have the contaminants in the sediment
affected quahogs? Quahogs live in soft sediment
and filter particulates from the water, so they
can be exposed to contaminants in a number
of ways: dissolved in the water, attached to
particulate material in the water, attached to
sediments resuspended from the bottom, or
dissolved in the sediment pore water. Several
studies were conducted in the 1980s and 1990s
that measured contaminant levels in quahogs
from Narragansett Bay. An analysis of the data
from three of these studies concluded that
metal levels in quahogs from different areas
of Narragansett Bay, including a station in
Greenwich Bay, were fairly uniform despite large
differences in concentrations of the metals in the
overlying water and sediment [84]. An exception
was the concentration of copper, cadmium, and
lead in quahogs from Providence River. The
Providence River quahogs had concentrations
of these three metals that were two to three
times higher than the bay-wide averages [84].
In a study of organic compounds in quahogs,
sampled in 1985 and 1986 from four areas in
mid to upper Narragansett Bay and from Mount
Hope Bay, Greenwich Bay quahogs had the
lowest concentrations of PCBs and PAHs [85].
Compared to the four other areas, Greenwich Bay
quahogs had mid-level concentrations of DDTs,
chlordane (a pesticide used from 1948 to 1988),
and benzotriazoles (BZTs, synthetic chemicals
produced by a company in Rhode Island from
1963 to 1986). But concentrations of all the
organic compounds measured in this study were
significantly lower in Greenwich Bay quahogs
than in those from the Providence River [85].
Other studies have used these data to assess the
risk from a public health point of view—are
the shellfish safe to eat? In 1981, an evaluation
of metal levels in quahogs for the whole state
concluded that lead in quahogs from the
Providence River might be a public health
hazard; however, no FDA or Rhode Island State
limit exists for lead [86]. Quahogs sampled in
1987 from various locations in Narragansett
Bay (including Apponaug Cove, Sally Rock
in Greenwich Bay, and Providence River) had
concentrations of PCBs well below the FDA
action level of 2.0 |j,g/g (the concentration above
which the seafood is considered unsafe and will
be removed from market) [87]. In 1992, another
assessment of quahogs from all of Narragansett
Bay, including the upper bay, concluded that
nickel and mercury levels "appeared to be of
marginal rather than serious concern" and a
preliminary analysis indicated that PCBs and
PAHs (both carcinogens) are "likely to be at
the margin of concern rather than seriously
Industrial 25
-------
exceeding acceptable levels" [88]. But there were
problems with the methodology used in this
assessment—it did not include a good assessment
of the amount of quahogs eaten [89]. A recent
study of mercury in Narragansett Bay sediments
and biota found that the concentration of total
mercury in quahogs sampled from various places
in the bay, including Greenwich Bay, was very
low, well below the FDA action level for methyl
mercury (concentration of total mercury includes
methyl mercury, which is the most toxic form of
mercury and accumulates in seafood, particularly
in fish at the top of the food chain) [90]. A more
thorough assessment of risk concluded that there
were no immediate health threats associated with
an average level of consumption of quahogs from
any area of Narragansett Bay, although eating
large quantities could increase the risk of cancer
to unacceptable levels [89]. The greatest risk for
adverse health effects was associated with eating
large quantities of quahogs from the Providence
River, primarily due to contamination with
PAHs, PCBs, and cadmium [89]. Fortunately,
the quahogs that might pose a health risk from
chemical contaminants are found in areas that
are permanently closed to shellfishing because
of bacterial contamination, so the public is not
exposed when eating legally harvested quahogs.
Water Quality- Bacteria and Oxygen
The increasing number of people who moved
into the Greenwich Bay watershed during the
Industrial Period caused bacterial pollution of
bay waters. Sewer lines to handle this increase in
population were first installed in East Greenwich
in 1896 and 1897, and emptied directly into
Greenwich Cove. A sewage treatment plant,
built in 1928, provided only primary treatment,
and the liquid waste emptied directly into the
cove. Human waste entered upper Apponaug
Cove via Apponaug Brook; Rhode Island
Division of Water Pollution surveys from
1927 to 1951 described gross pollution and
bacterial contamination in upper Apponaug
Cove [47]. Maps dated 1936 show shellfish beds
in Apponaug Cove closed to shellfishing because
of water quality [66]. By 1946, Apponaug and
Greenwich Coves were permanently closed to
shellfishing because of fecal contamination [7].
There is some historical evidence of low oxygen
in Apponaug Cove. Investigations conducted
in the summers of 1922 and 1923 found
Apponaug Brook "practically devoid of oxygen
and badly discolored with dyes and other
industrial wastes" from the Apponaug Company
[91]. The zone of pollution extended out into
Greenwich Bay, and fishermen working in the
bay complained about the water quality. Other
historical data recorded low dissolved oxygen in
inner Apponaug Cove; oxygen concentrations
averaged 30% of saturation in August 1924,
and there were anoxic areas in July and August
1926 [92]. A "red tide" algal bloom and massive
fish kill [93], thought to be linked in part to
pollution [94], was reported in Narragansett
Bay and Greenwich Bay as early as 1898.
Fisheries
In the mid 1800s, a number of events led to the
demand for more fish, resulting in an economic
boom for the fishing industry on the East Coast:
rapid growth of the country, use of railroads and
ice to transport fresh fish to cities, recognition
of fish oil as a valuable product, and use of
uncooked fish as manure. By the early 1870s,
it was recognized that the fish stocks in Rhode
Island and Massachusetts were declining. In
1871, a bill was passed in the United States
Congress to appoint a commissioner offish and
fisheries "for the protection and preservation of
the food fishes of the coast of the United States"
[95]. Spencer F. Baird was appointed the first
U.S. fish commissioner and was authorized to
conduct an inquiry into the state of fisheries in
Rhode Island and Massachusetts. In his report,
Baird concluded that there was "an alarming
decrease of the shore fisheries" [95]. He wrote
that the decline of some species had started at
the beginning of the nineteenth century but was
more rapid during the twenty years prior to his
inquiry. He attributed the recent rapid decline to
the increased use offish traps and pounds. Fish
traps were set along the shore in early spring and
caught whole schools offish (e.g. alewives, tautog,
mackerel, menhaden, scup, sea bass, bluefish,
and squiteague) as they moved along the coast
and into Narragansett Bay and Buzzards Bay,
Massachusetts, to spawn. The hook-and-line
fishermen blamed the trap fishermen for the
26 Imprint of the Past
-------
Greenwich
Year Bay
1881
1882
1898
1899
1902
1903
1904
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1922
nd
nd
nd
2
6
8
5
8
11
12
13
11
16
15
nd
nd
Total for
Rhode Island
20
25
119
121
161
195
220
240
249
271
271
277
283
277
261
127
Table 4. Number offish traps in Rhode Island waters at the turn of the
twentieth century. Data from the Annual Reports of the Commissions of Inland
Fisheries, Rhode Island [97]. The number of traps set in Greenwich Bay was
not available for all years (nd = no data).
decrease in fish. In 1871, legislation was proposed
in the Rhode Island General Assembly to
prohibit fish traps in Narragansett Bay in order
to preserve the right of each individual to fish
and not infringe upon the rights of others, and
to conserve the fish stocks. Even though the
right to fish is guaranteed in the Rhode Island
charter, the legislation to prohibit fish traps
did not pass; however, some restrictions were
placed on the use of the traps. Fish traps in
Narragansett Bay proliferated, with some traps
set in Greenwich Bay by 1899 (Table 4). The
number of traps in Greenwich Bay peaked at
sixteen in 1910 (Fig. 8). After 1910, the number of
traps in all state waters declined. Large numbers
of scup were caught in the traps, including
the traps set in Greenwich Bay [96].
George Goode, Assistant Director of
the U.S. National Museum, and his
associates described the fisheries
of Greenwich Bay in 1880 [40].
They reported that Apponaug and
East Greenwich had active fishing
fleets (Table 5). Fish—bluefish,
squiteague, tautog, flounders and
scup—were caught by hand-lines, seines,
and gill-nets. Fyke nets were set along the
Point Judith
Figure 8. Map offish traps in Narragansett Bay in 1910. Map redrawn from
the Forty-first Annual Report of the Commissioners of Inland Fisheries [152].
Industrial 27
-------
shore of Greenwich Bay in the winter under the
ice. Soft-shell clams and scallops were leading
fishery products. Scallop beds in Greenwich
Bay were the most productive in Narragansett
Bay. In 1865, the scallop harvest from East
Greenwich and Warwick comprised 86% of the
scallop harvest for the whole state (Table 6). The
scallop beds surrounded Chepiwanoxet Island
and extended along the northern and southern
shores of the bay. Scallops were dredged from
September 15 to May 15. Soft-shell clams, which
inhabit soft bottoms in the intertidal to subtidal
zones, were dug close to shore year round. Most
of the soft-shell clams harvested in the summer
were used in the clam bakes held at the beach
resorts—Rocky Point, Buttonwoods, Oakland
Beach. Although oysters had been abundant
in earlier times and laws had been passed in
East Greenwich to preserve the oyster fishery,
by 1865 few oysters were landed by fisherman
in East Greenwich and Warwick (Table 6), and
these oysters were most likely harvested from
Narragansett Bay, not Greenwich Bay. Goode and
Associates reported that by 1880 Narragansett
Bay had "almost ceased to yield marketable
oysters of natural growth..." [40]. Writing in
1877, the historian D.H. Greene also mentioned
the scarcity of oysters and the abundance of
scallops in Greenwich Bay at that time [51].
As the oyster fishery collapsed, the hard clam,
or quahog, became more important. Quahogs
were harvested commercially in the 1800s but
were not a significant part of
the commercial fishery until the
1930s and 1940s [41]. In 1865
quahog harvest for the whole
state accounted for only 7.5% of
the total shellfish catch (Table 6)
[40]. Commercial quahog harvest
in Rhode Island peaked in the
1950s at over five million pounds
and then declined to less than one
million pounds in the 1970s (Fig.
9) [98]. The increase in the quahog
harvest from 1920 to the 1950s
was due to the opening of new
fishing areas that were no longer
used for oysters [99] and the
increased use of outboard motors
that enabled fishermen to cover
Table 5. Fishing resources and catch in Apponaug
and East Greenwich in 1880 (nd = no data) [40, p. 306].
CO
g>'
I
O 4J
o
en
-o
o
CL
W
.0
3-
Resources
Sail boats
Small boats
Scallop/clam dredges
Seines
Gill nets
Fyke-nets
Catch
Scallops
Clams (bushels)
Fresh fish (pounds)
Apponaug
9
30
36
4
nd
nd
•
3300 (gallons)
6000
37,500
East
Greenwich
16
12
75
4
11
100
•
6000 (bushels)
4000
125,000
Table 6. Shellfishing products (number of bushels)
reported for 18651 [40, p. 286].
Clams
Quahogs
Scallops
Oysters
Warwick
9,127
2,953
1,627
242
East
Greenwich
1,415
339
6,635
13
Total for
State
31,697
9,241
9,653
71,894
' numbers presented by a committee of the general
assembly of Rhode Island for 1865, with a note
that the amounts probably should be doubled [40].
1880
1900
1920
1960
1980
1940
Year
Figure 9. Commercial quahog harvest from Narragansett Bay.
Figure redrawn from DeAlteris et al. [98].
2000
28 Imprint of the Past
-------
larger areas [41]. The decline in harvest between
the 1950s and 1970s was due primarily to
pollution in upper Narragansett Bay that closed
prime shellfishing grounds [100]. Quahog harvest
information specifically for Greenwich Bay is
not available, but quahogs were abundant in
Greenwich Bay, and there was an active quahog
fishery there. Conditions in Greenwich Bay
favored good production of quahogs: nutrient-
rich freshwater input, abundant phytoplankton,
sand and mud bottom [77], and a low number
of competing species [101]. Shallow depths in
Greenwich Bay and protection from winter
winds made harvesting of quahogs easier there.
A section of the waterfront in East Greenwich
known as Scalloptown was the center of
Greenwich Bay fishing activity for over a century
(Fig. 10). The shorefront east of Rope Walk Hill,
from King Street to London Street, had been
designated as "shore lots" by the East Greenwich
Proprietors to be used for "fishing purposes
and wharfing" [102]. Starting in the first half of
the 1800s, a haphazard cluster of small houses,
shanties, and boathouses were built by fishermen.
By the turn of the century Scalloptown had
become a social problem with reports of illegal
and immoral activity. In 1913 the Town Council
condemned many of the buildings, and in 1926 a
fire destroyed most of the rest of the houses [102].
Further damage of shoreline buildings occurred
in the 1938 hurricane, but some of the boathouses
were rebuilt and Scalloptown is still the center
of commercial shellfishing in Greenwich Bay.
South Water Street, East Greenwich, c. 1930s. Scalloptown
shanties were home for some in lean times. A fire in 1926 and
the 1938 hurricane destroyed the Scalloptown shanties and
boathouses. (Drew collection, courtesy of East Greenwich
Historic Preservation Society)
-a
0
i — i
0
Figure 10. The 1910 Sanborn Fire Insurance map [153] shows the boathouses and buildings along the East Greenwich shore
in the area known as Scalloptown. Shading and the label "Scalloptown" was added to this section of the map.
Industrial 29
-------
Seagrass
Seagrass beds serve as nursery and feeding
grounds for fish, shellfish, and wildlife.
Seagrasses are important in maintaining the
physical, chemical, and biological integrity
of coastal ecosystems [103, 104]. In the 1800s
and early 1900s, eelgrass (Zostera marina L.),
the species of seagrass most common in
New England coastal waters, was prevalent
throughout Narragansett Bay [105]. Seagrasses
are often associated with scallop beds. Goode's
[40] description of fisheries in Greenwich Bay
in 1880 included scallop beds, and it is likely
that eelgrass was located in those same places—
surrounding Chepiwanoxet Island and extending
along the northern and southern shores of the
bay. Later evidence of eelgrass in Greenwich
Bay supports that assumption. On a 1913 survey
map, eelgrass was indicated in the southeastern
part of Apponaug Cove, north of Chepiwanoxet
Island, and along the northern and southern
shores of Greenwich Bay [105]. According to
old-time shellfishermen, eelgrass was found up
to a depth of 15 feet in most of Greenwich Bay
before the 1938 hurricane [105]. During the
early 1930s eelgrass abruptly disappeared from
much of the American and European Atlantic
coasts [106] and presumably disappeared from
Greenwich Bay. The die-off was attributed to
"wasting disease" that was thought to be caused
by a fungus. By the 1940s eelgrass was beginning
to come back in selected areas, including
Greenwich Bay. In the 1940s and 1950s, old-
time shellfishermen remembered seeing eelgrass
north of Chepiwanoxet Point and along the
southern shore west of Sally Rock Point [105].
Dams and Fish
During the Industrial Revolution, dams were
built on rivers to provide an inexpensive source
of power or a source of water for commercial
processing (for example, finishing and dyeing
textiles). Anadromous fish, such as alewives,
blueback herring, American shad, and Atlantic
salmon, spend most of their lives in marine
waters but return to fresh water during the
spring to spawn. Dams that block their passage
upstream can result in extirpation of local
fish populations [107]. Dams also can alter
the characteristics of streams; they can raise
water temperatures, concentrate sediment
and pollutants, buffer the normal water level
fluctuations, and alter species composition [107].
The effect of dams on native fish populations
seemed not to be considered at this time,
although in the early 1700s Warwick forbid
the setting of weir, nets, and dams that would
impede the movement offish upriver. Dams
were built on some streams that empty into
Greenwich Bay. In 1865, a dam was built on
Apponaug Brook at Gorton Pond near the textile
mill. In East Greenwich, a dam was built on the
Maskerchugg River forming Bleachery Pond,
probably in 1840 when the Green Dale Bleachery
was built. More dams were added later; from the
1950s to the 1970s, a number of dams were built
to create farm ponds and recreational ponds.
By 2010, there were two dams on Apponaug
Brook, nine dams on Hardig Brook, and seven
dams on the Maskerchugg River [108].
Anadromous fish were plentiful in Narragansett
Bay in the 1600s [109]. By the late 1800s, two
species of anadromous fish (sturgeon and
salmon) were disappearing [40]. In 1875, the
Rhode Island Commissioners of Inland Fisheries
were concerned about river herring, stating
that "in olden time, the herring swarmed in
every stream" [110]. Their report mentioned the
problem of dams blocking streams and urged
that some legislation be passed to protect herring.
In 1880, alewives (Alosa pseudoharengus) were
still plentiful in Rhode Island waters and were
the third largest annual catch offish, after
menhaden and scup [111]. However, by 1960 there
were no significant landings of anadromous fish
in Narragansett Bay [111]. In 1993, a fish survey
found that Greenwich Bay was a valuable habitat
for river herring and still supported populations
of alewives and blueback herring (Alosa
aestivalis) [17]. Alewives spawn in upper Brush
Neck Cove, but dams obstruct river herring
runs on the Maskerchugg River and Apponaug
and Hardig Brooks [107]. A recent study, which
assessed the suitability of restoring anadromous
fish, found that the Maskerchugg River and
Apponaug and Hardig Brooks had suitable
habitat for alewives and blueback herring;
however, a low restoration priority was given to
the dam at Bleachery Pond on the Maskerchugg
River because of the height of the dam [107]. The
30 Imprint of the Past
-------
TH »• «l Blotter!, Cul Cna»ic». R. I.
Bleachery Pond Dam, postcard postmarked Oct 14, 1908. The height of Bleachery Pond dam, 16 feet, gives it
a low priority for restoration of the anadromous fish run on the Maskerchugg River. Today the East Greenwich
Muncipal Land Trust manages 5.5 acres of land at Bleachery Pond. Walking paths are accessible from the
northern side of the Maskerchugg River near Post Road. (Bruce MacGunnigle, private collection)
Gorton Pond Dam on Apponaug Brook only
partially obstructs fish passage, and restoration
to this fish run was given a high priority [107].
Natural Hazards - Hurricanes
Natural hazards cause damage to property
and natural resources, can cause injuries and
fatalities, and can interrupt business. The most
significant natural hazards for Greenwich Bay
are hurricanes and nor'easters [7]. The hurricane
of 1938 was the worst hurricane to hit Rhode
Island in recent times, and it had devastating
affects on Greenwich Bay. The low lying areas
of Warwick and East Greenwich were flooded
with a storm surge that was 13 feet above the
normal high tide line [75]. Many waterfront
buildings in East Greenwich and Warwick
were damaged or washed away. The shanties,
docks, and boats at Scalloptown were left in a
jumble of broken wood. State-wide, the town of
Warwick sustained the most property damage;
over seven hundred permanent homes and
hundreds of summer houses were destroyed
[112]. Damage along the northern shore of
Greenwich Bay was extensive. At Oakland
Beach waterfront houses, the amusement park,
Oakland Beach Yacht Club, and other landmarks
were destroyed. Damage there was so great that
some homeowners did not rebuild. The trolley
trestles across Warwick and Brush Neck Coves
were destroyed. At Buttonwoods the bank
along Promenade Avenue, which ran along the
waterfront, was eroded [112]. Land was lost on
the eastern end of the Buttonwoods peninsula,
and Promenade Avenue was damaged so badly
there that the eastern end of the road was not
rebuilt [113]. After the hurricane, a seawall
was built along the western end of Promenade
Avenue to protect the road from more erosion.
An earlier hurricane, the Great Gale of 1815,
caused damage in Rhode Island and southern
New England [114]. During that storm, a surge
of water moved up Narragansett Bay; it flooded
Providence and swept vessels over wharfs and
into the streets. Throughout southern New
England coastal flooding damaged buildings
and boats, large trees were uprooted, and
agricultural crops were ruined by wind and
salt spray. Undoubtedly, flooding occurred
in Greenwich Bay, but in 1815 there were
few waterfront buildings along the northern
shore where a storm surge would have
caused the most damage, as it did in 1938.
In 1954, Rhode Island was hit by another
significant storm, Hurricane Carol. Oakland
Industrial 31
-------
Beach sustained the greatest damage
in Greenwich Bay; but homes and
boats were also lost at Arnold's Neck,
Chepiwanoxet, and Potowomut, and flash
floods damaged sections of Apponaug
[112]. Although no major hurricanes
have hit Rhode Island since 1954, four
smaller storms have occurred: tropical
storm Diane, 1955; and hurricanes Donna,
1960; Gloria, 1985; and Bob, 1991. A
National Hurricane Center model has
identified Oakland Beach, Buttonwoods,
and Potowomut as areas at high risk for
coastal flooding from storm surge [7].
West end of Oakland Beach - then and now.
The post card (above) depicts the beach front
houses in the early 20th century. The tower for
the circle swing ride at Oakland Amusement
Park can be seen in the background. These
houses were destroyed in the 1938 hurricane
and were not rebuilt. (Warwick Historical
Society). Today there are no houses along the
west end shore of Oakland Beach. (Photo left
by Carol Pesch)
Summary of the Industrial Period
During the Industrial Period (c. 1800 to c. 1945)
unregulated industries in the watershed polluted
Greenwich Bay waters and sediments with metals
and organic chemicals. Concentrations of some
metals in bay sediments corresponded to the
activities of a large textile mill in Apponaug,
but also indicated other sources within the
watershed. Increased human population caused
an increase in the amount of sewage. Sewer lines
installed in East Greenwich emptied directly
into Greenwich Cove. The first WWTF in East
Greenwich, built in 1928, had only primary
treatment. Overflowing privy vaults and
cesspools added to the bacterial problem in the
watershed. Greenwich and Apponaug Coves
were polluted with fecal bacteria and closed to
shellfishing. Episodes of low oxygen occurred
in Apponaug Cove. Building of the Stonington
Railroad contributed to sedimentation in
Greenwich Cove. The railroad bridge across
Apponaug Cove formed an inner cove section,
changing patterns in water circulation and
sedimentation. Dams built on Apponaug and
Hardig Brooks and the Maskerchugg River
obstructed the passage of anadromous fish. By
the 1870s fish stocks in Narragansett Bay, and
presumably Greenwich Bay, were declining
due to overfishing. Few oysters were harvested
in Greenwich Bay, and the oyster fishery in
Narragansett Bay collapsed by the late 1800s.
Scallops were plentiful in Greenwich Bay in the
the late 1800s, but disappeared in the first half
of the 1900s with the disappearance of eelgrass.
Industrialization had negative effects on the
ecology of Greenwich Bay.
32 Imprint of the Past
-------
Suburbanization Period - c. 1945 to present
The pattern of suburbanization (development
of human population outside of cities) set
in the early 1900s was followed with a boom
in development after the end of World War II.
The GI Bill made home ownership available to
returning servicemen and fueled the growth of
suburban neighborhoods [7]. Farm land, already
cleared and generally flat, was well-suited for
building housing developments. Summer houses
were converted to year-round homes. From 1940
to 1970 the population in Warwick increased
almost 3-fold, East Greenwich population
increased about 2.5-fold, and West Warwick
population increased about 1.3-fold (Fig. 4).
Overall, from 1970 to 2000, the population
leveled off compared to growth in the previous
30 years: East Greenwich's
population increased 1.4-
fold, while Warwick's and
West Warwick's increased
slightly (Fig. 4). From 1950
to 2000, the estimated
population in the watershed
doubled, from an estimated
25,500 to 49,400 (Fig. 5).
Land Use
Land use data prior to 1988
are poor or non-existent,
so it is difficult to compare
loss of agricultural land
from 1950 to present,
but it was substantial.
Specific categories in the
newest land use data set
(2003-2004) were different
from previous years, so we
could not compare those
to past years. Comparison
of land use within the watershed from 1988 to
1995 showed that developed land increased, from
59.5% to 62%, while undeveloped land decreased
(40.5% to 37.9%) [7]. By 1995, only about 3% of
the land in the watershed was categorized as
agricultural, 17.9% as forest, and 9% as wetlands;
whereas, 62% was classified as developed—46%
residential, and 16% commercial and industrial
[7]. By 2004, human-made impervious surfaces
(buildings and paved surfaces such as roads,
sidewalks, driveways, parking lots) accounted
for 29% of the Greenwich Bay watershed
(calculated from RIGIS impervious surface data
layer based on imagery taken in 2003-2004)
(Fig. 11). Watersheds that contain greater than
15% impervious surfaces are considered by
WARWICK
WEST
WARWICK
Impmiotr* Sur hiiv
Greenw ich Bay Watershed
Town Lines
Figure 11. Impervious surfaces (pavement) accounted for 29% of the Greenwich Bay
watershed in 2004 (RIGIS impervious surface data layer).
Suburbanization 33
-------
EPA as beginning to "suffer negative ecological
effects" [115]. Impervious surfaces cause rain
and runoff to flow quickly, via storm drains, into
adjacent water bodies instead of slowly seeping
into the ground where runoff is filtered and is
available to recharge ground water aquifers.
Land use along the shore has a direct influence
on fish, wildlife, and water quality. Wetlands
and vegetated buffers trap sediment, pollutants,
and nutrients, and thus, improve water quality
by decreasing the amount of contaminants that
reach the bay. Wetlands and vegetated buffers
protect the shore from storm erosion and
provide habitat for wildlife. In addition, coastal
wetlands protect the shore from flooding, provide
habitat for fish, and provide opportunities for
recreation—fishing, shellfishing, and bird-
watching. Land use along Greenwich Bay's
25.8-mile coastline was similar to the whole
watershed. By 2003, 57% of the land within a
500-foot buffer of the shore was developed—47%
residential, and 10% commercial and industrial
[7]. The undeveloped shoreline was composed
of 26% forest, 8% wetlands, and 4% vegetated.
A study conducted in 2005 identified 14 miles
along Greenwich Bay coast as potential
vegetated buffer restoration sites, with the
areas along Potowomut Neck and Cedar Tree
Point as having the most potential [116].
Greenwich Bay has never had extensive coastal
wetlands. Its coastal wetlands are primarily
fringe marshes along the shores of the coves.
The largest tidal wetlands are along Baker
Creek and Marys Creek in the northwestern
portion of the bay. Shoreline development
is the primary cause of destruction of
vegetated buffers and coastal wetlands. We
were able to measure the loss of coastal
wetlands in Greenwich Bay by comparing
the wetlands shown on maps from 1868
to those delineated in the 2003 National
Wetland Inventory [117]. Our comparison
showed a 40% loss of coastal wetlands, from
249 acres in 1868 to 148 acres in 2003. Most
of the loss occurred in the fringe wetlands
in Apponaug, Brush Neck, Buttonwoods,
and Warwick Coves. The larger tidal
wetlands along Baker and Marys Creeks still
exist, although they have been impacted:
Baker Creek by vegetation change, and Marys
Creek by vegetation change, tidal restriction,
ditching, fill, debris, and stormwater discharge
[117]. These two wetlands, as well as impacted
fringe marshes along the coves, have been
identified as potential restoration sites [7, 117].
By 1996, 24% of the shoreline of Greenwich Bay
had been hardened by built structures such as
bulkheads, revetments, and bridge abutments
(RIGIS hardened shoreline data). Also there were
4,180 ft of breakwaters, jetties, and groins that
extended into bay waters. Hardened structures,
such as revetments, can protect the immediate
shoreline, but they alter water circulation and
erosion patterns, trap potential beach sediment,
and consequently can affect other nearby
shoreline areas. Groins were built at Oakland,
Buttonwoods, and Cedar Tree Point beaches to
trap sand and have slowed the erosion process
there [7]. But these beaches, which were battered
by previous hurricanes, will be increasingly prone
to erosion due to sea-level rise and more intense
storms, which are expected with climate change.
Estimates for sea-level rise in Rhode Island
range from 17 to 34 inches by the year 2100 [7].
Shoreline structures provide protection during
moderate storms, but the presence of hardened
structures often provides a false sense of security
for protection from damage during severe
storms. Hardened structures also affect shoreline
habitat. Some species offish spawn in near-shore
Baker Creek is one of the larger tidal wetlands in Greenwich Bay.
(Photo by Christopher Deacutis, Narragansett Bay Estuary Program)
34 Imprint of the Past
-------
Marys Creek wetlands have been impacted by vegetation change, tidal restriction, ditching, filling,
and stormwater discharge. (Photo by Christopher Deacutis, Narragansett Bay Estuary Program)
areas and coastal wetlands, so loss of these areas
by hardening of the shoreline decreases the
amount of habitat available for these species.
Water Quality
Increases in population and commercial activity
during the Suburbanization Period affected the
water quality of Greenwich Bay. Water quality
in the bay continued to decline: bay waters were
further contaminated by fecal bacteria, nitrogen
inputs increased, and there were episodes of low
dissolved oxygen [7]. According to water quality
testing in 2010, Greenwich Bay and all five of
its coves did not meet the Rhode Island Water
Quality Standards for one of the seven designated
use categories, fish and wildlife habitat, because
of excessive nitrogen and low dissolved oxygen
[118]. Two freshwater brooks within the
watershed were also listed as not supporting the
standards for fish and wildlife habitat: Hardig
Brook and its tributaries did not meet the
standard for lead, and the Maskerchugg River
did not meet the standards for cadmium [118].
Bacterial Contamination
The major pathway for fecal bacteria to enter
bay waters is thought to be via storm drains [7].
Surface water runoff carries bacteria from
pets and wildlife into storm drains that empty
directly into the bay. Bacteria also reach bay
waters from failing individual septic systems
within the watershed. Another possible source
of bacteria is from illegal boat discharges.
Fecal contamination of bay waters has led to
shellfish bed closures. By 1946, Apponaug and
Greenwich Coves were permanently closed to
shellfishing. Warwick Cove and the Cowesett
shore were added to the permanently closed areas
by 1972, Brush Neck Cove was closed by 1990,
and Buttonwoods Cove was closed by 2004 [7].
In December 1992 heavy precipitation caused
violations of the shellfish fecal-coliform standard,
and in January 1993 the whole bay was closed
to shellfishing to allow time to reclassify the
waters [119]. In 1994 Greenwich Bay (but not the
coves, and an area south of Apponaug Cove) was
conditionally opened to shellfishing during dry
weather (0.5 inches of rain in 24 hours will close
an area for 7 days). As of May 2010, 313 acres
of Greenwich Bay that had been permanently
closed were re-classified as conditionally
approved, indicating that conditions appeared
to be improving [120]. But a year later in May
2011, 46 of these acres (near Baker Creek) were
permanently closed again, indicating the need to
continue implementing programs that prevent
bacteria from reaching the bay [121]. Quahog
populations in the closed areas have thrived.
To take advantage of this resource, RIDEM
started a transplant program in the late 1970s.
Initially, quahogs were moved from Greenwich
Cove to western Greenwich Bay [122]. Currently,
quahogs are harvested from the contaminated
coves (Greenwich, Apponaug and Warwick)
and moved to clean areas in Narragansett Bay
where they are protected from harvest for at
least six months to allow the quahogs to cleanse
themselves[123]. The Rhode Island Department
Suburbanization 35
-------
of Health monitors the transplanted quahogs
for fecal coliform bacteria and seven metals at
the time of the move and again six months later,
before harvest, to ensure they are safe to eat [123].
Bacterial pollution clearly affects shellfisheries in
Greenwich Bay, and also in Narragansett Bay.
Fecal contamination of bay waters has also
led to beach closures. The Rhode Island
Department of Health monitors bacterial
levels during the summer beach season at
the three public beaches in Greenwich Bay—
Goddard Memorial Park State Beach, Warwick
City Park Beach, and Oakland Beach. From
1998 to 2010 most of these beaches had some
closure days due to unhealthy bacterial counts,
usually after wet weather (Table 7) [124].
Effects of Nutrients
Nutrients—nitrogen and phosphorus—
stimulate plant growth and are necessary for
healthy ecosystems. However, when human
activities increase nutrients to excessive levels,
a series of negative ecological effects can
result. Eutrophication, the excessive growth of
algae, causes low dissolved oxygen in bottom
waters as the algae die, sink to the bottom,
and use up the available oxygen in the process
of decaying. Low dissolved oxygen levels can
drastically affect aquatic organisms, killing
or driving off most of the larger animals.
This simplified story is actually much more
complex in nature, where several highly variable
factors can critically affect the process.
Sources of Nitrogen
In estuarine systems, nitrogen is the primary
nutrient that stimulates plant growth [125],
and excess nitrogen can cause severe problems.
Nitrogen enters Greenwich Bay from freshwater
streams, storm drains, ground water,
wastewater from the East Greenwich WWTF,
atmospheric deposition, and tidal exchange
from Narragansett Bay [7]. Old cesspools,
failing individual septic systems, and synthetic
fertilizers (used extensively after 1950) are
sources of nitrogen in ground water. In 2006
the East Greenwich WWTF was upgraded to
tertiary treatment to remove nitrogen from
Table 7. Number of beach closure days for three
public beaches in Greenwich Bay. Data from the
Rhode Island Department of Health [124].
Year
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
Warwick
City Park
27
0
0
19
15
23
5
7
17
3
15
12
2
Goddard
Park
14
7
16
28
7
21
0
2
10
1
1
10
5
Oakland
Beach
31
0
10
12
12
66
11
7
15
7
15
17
5
its wastewater. Recently, researchers, using
modeling techniques and estimating mass
budgets of nitrogen, have suggested that a
major source of nitrogen to Greenwich Bay is
coming from Narragansett Bay. Steve Granger
and his co-authors at the University of Rhode
Island Graduate School of Oceanography
(GSO) estimated that the amount of dissolved
inorganic nitrogen entering Greenwich Bay from
Narragansett Bay was about equal to the amount
entering from the Greenwich Bay watershed
(ground water, streams, and WWTF), while
the amount from atmospheric deposition was
considerably less [126]. Mark Brush, also from
GSO, estimated that a larger contribution of
nitrogen was coming from Narragansett Bay,
about four times the amount from the watershed
[127]. In the latest study, Peter DiMilla and his
co-authors estimated that the largest source of
dissolved inorganic nitrogen to Greenwich Bay
was Narragansett Bay (54%), while sources from
the watershed totaled 44% (21% from streams,
12% from ground water, 7% from the East
Greenwich WWTF in 2004 and 2005 before the
tertiary upgrade, and 4% from storm drains),
and atmospheric deposition was small, 2% [14].
The amount of nitrogen entering Greenwich Bay
remains open to research and debate, but it is
36 Imprint of the Past
-------
clear that Greenwich Bay receives a considerable
nitrogen input from Narragansett Bay.
Narragansett Bay, especially the upper bay,
receives a considerable nitrogen load from
its densely populated watershed. Upper
Narragansett Bay shows the negative effects of
excessive levels of nitrogen—dense macroalgal
mats, summertime hypoxia, and benthic
community changes [128]. Nitrogen enters the
upper bay directly from three large WWTFs
(Field's Point, Bucklin Point, East Providence)
and from the rivers that enter the upper bay
(Blackstone River with three WWTFs; Ten Mile
River with two WWTFs; Woonasquatucket
and Moshassuck Rivers with one WWTF; and
Pawtuxet River with three WWTFs, Warwick,
West Warwick, and Cranston) [129-131].
Although sewers and WWTFs keep nitrogen
from entering ground water and streams,
the effect of sewage systems is to concentrate
nitrogen and potentially increase the proportion
of nitrogen reaching the receiving waters [131].
Until the late 1800s, nitrogen input to upper
Narragansett Bay was low; in 1865, a U.S.
Coast Guard survey of the Providence River
found eelgrass growing there, evidence of clear
water and thus low nitrogen [130]. After the
installation of Providence's public water supply
system in 1871 and a sewage treatment facility
at Field's Point in 1892, the input of nitrogen to
upper Narragansett Bay increased greatly. One
estimate of total nitrogen input to Narragansett
Bay indicated about a 10-fold increase from
1865 to 1925, and then another 20% increase
before leveling off in the 1980s [130]. Another
research group estimated that nitrogen input to
Narragansett Bay increased 250% from 1850 to
2000 [132]. Their model showed that nitrogen
input to the upper bay increased far more than
to the lower bay, and that the source of nitrogen
shifted dramatically over time from animal
(livestock) waste, which was dispersed over land,
to human waste, which is concentrated at sewage
treatment facilities. They estimated that in
1850 18% of nitrogen input to the bay was from
human waste, 51% from animal wastes (horses,
cows, sheep, and hogs), a negligible amount
from fertilizer, and 31% from atmospheric
deposition. Whereas, the estimates of nitrogen
input for 2000 were: 51% from human wastes
delivered through sewers, 14% from human
waste from septic systems and cesspools, 2%
from animal waste, 13% from fertilizer, and
20% from atmospheric deposition [132]. Given
the exchange of water between Narragansett
Bay and Greenwich Bay, water from upper
Narragansett Bay has the potential to increase
the amount of nitrogen in Greenwich Bay.
Effects of Nitrogen Pollution on Seagrass
Symptoms of eutrophication recorded in
Greenwich Bay include: increased phytoplankton
and macroalgal (seaweed) biomass [126],
increased low dissolved oxygen in summer
months [126], odor problems and decreased
aesthetic quality [133], and loss of eelgrass [105,
134]. Eelgrass has specific light requirements and
loss of eelgrass world-wide has been attributed
in part to reduced light availability due to
eutrophication [135, 136]. Eelgrass had been
abundant in Greenwich Bay in the late 1800s
and first half of the 1900s. According to personal
interviews, eelgrass was just seen in limited
areas of Greenwich Bay in the second half of
the twentieth century: in the 1960s, between
the mouth of Brush Neck and Warwick Coves
and west of Sally Rock Point; in the 1970s to
1990s, north of Chepiwanoxet Point and west of
Sally Rock Point [105]. A survey of eelgrass in
Rhode Island waters conducted in 2006 found
no eelgrass in Greenwich Bay [134]. However,
since 2008 patches of another species of seagrass,
Ruppia maritima L. (widgeongrass), have been
noted on the northern shore of Greenwich Bay,
extending west from the mouth of Apponaug
Cove for about a quarter of a mile [137].
Effects of Nitrogen Pollution on Oxygen
Low dissolved oxygen (DO) occurs mostly in the
summer, when conditions favor stratification of
the water column, with less dense fresh water
floating over denser salt water. These conditions
occur with hot temperatures, low wind, and
small tides that result in minimal mixing of the
water column. Without mixing, the organisms
near the bottom use up the oxygen, and hypoxia
(low oxygen, less than 2 mg/L) or anoxia (no
oxygen) can occur. Low DO concentrations affect
aquatic organisms and can result in foul odors
Suburbanization 37
-------
as sediments and water turn sulfidic. Dissolved
oxygen concentrations of less than 4.8 nig/L for
extended periods result in reduced abundance
and diversity of aquatic life [138]. Fish and
shellfish kills can occur at DO concentrations
below 1.0 nig/L. In the 1920s, some low DO
events had been recorded in Apponaug Cove.
In recent years, there have been more recorded
incidents of low oxygen in Greenwich Bay, mostly
in the western end and in Apponaug Cove.
Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management reported anoxic conditions in
Apponaug Cove bottom waters in August 1986
due to a sudden die off of macroalgae [92]. A large
fish kill (over 400 winter flounder) occurred at
the mouth of Apponaug Cove in June 1989 [92].
Samples of DO taken in the summer months of
1995 to 1997 recorded low oxygen concentrations
(less than 2 mg/L) in the near-bottom waters of
Greenwich and Apponaug Coves and the extreme
western end of Greenwich Bay [126]. RIDEM
reported small fish kills in Greenwich Bay in
July 1998 and 1999 and June 2001 [133]. A large
fish kill occurred in Greenwich Bay on August
20, 2003. It was estimated that over one million
animals died, primarily juvenile menhaden, but
also small crabs, grass shrimp, tautog, horseshoe
crabs, and American eels. Several weeks later,
a large number of soft-shell clams died [133].
In Greenwich Bay wind conditions are an
important factor in creating conditions that
led to low oxygen levels. As early as the 1950s,
researchers observed that during the summer,
strong southwesterly winds were more important
in moving sediment and plankton in Greenwich
Bay than were tides [139]. A recent study
indicated that southwesterly winds cause separate
gyres in the western and eastern section of
Greenwich Bay that trap the water in the bay and
increase the residence time (time water remains
in the bay) ten-fold over no wind conditions [140].
The severe hypoxic events in Greenwich Bay are
likely the result of poor exchange of water with
Narragansett Bay under these wind conditions
[8]. Other studies also show the influence of
Narragansett Bay water on Greenwich Bay. A
model that simulated wind and tidal movement
showed that, under certain meteorological
conditions, water from upper Narragansett
Bay flows around Warwick Neck and into
Greenwich Bay [9]. Another model indicated
that hypoxic events in Greenwich Bay were
linked to low DO water entering the bay from
upper Narragansett Bay [127]. The interactions
between Greenwich Bay waters and Narragansett
Bay waters are complex and variable, yet it
is evident that water quality in Greenwich
Bay deteriorated from 1945 to the present.
Response to Deteriorating Water Quality
What was the response to the deteriorating
water quality conditions in Greenwich Bay
during the Suburbanization Period? To correct
bacterial pollution in the bay, sewer systems were
extended and upgraded. Both East Greenwich
and Warwick worked to improve their sewage
treatment systems. In 1956, East Greenwich
extended its sewer lines to include the Hill and
Harbor District and added secondary treatment
(trickling filters and chlorination) to its WWTF.
In 1974, the sewer lines were extended further
west as far as Route 2. In 1989, the capacity of
the WWTF was expanded and the plant was
upgraded to advanced secondary treatment. In
the 1990s, the sewer lines were extended further
to include most of the area east of Route 2. In
2004, the East Greenwich WWTF stopped
using chlorination and used ultraviolet light
to disinfect the wastewater. And in 2006, the
WWTF was upgraded to tertiary treatment to
remove nitrogen from the wastewater [73].
In 1965, Warwick completed building a WWTF
with secondary treatment on the Pawtuxet River
and installed a small core of sewer lines, all
outside the watershed. After the 1992-93 closure
of Greenwich Bay to shellfishing due to bacterial
contamination, Warwick voters approved
a bond issue to upgrade the WWTF and to
expand the sewer system. Further upgrades
and expansions of Warwick's sewage system
occurred after the massive fish kill in 2003.
An upgrade of Warwick's WWTF to tertiary
treatment was completed in 2004. From 2006
to 2011, Warwick Sewer Authority worked on
sewer construction projects in 13 neighborhoods,
many of these adjacent to Greenwich Bay [141].
The Warwick Sewer Authority Facilities Plan of
2011 lists nine more future sewer construction
projects. In 2006, the Warwick Sewer Authority
38 Imprint of the Past
-------
implemented the Mandatory Sewer Connection
Program. This program required all residents
in sewered areas that are at high risk for
bacteria and nutrients to reach Greenwich Bay
to connect to the sewer lines by 2015. The five
areas identified as having the greatest risk were
the areas around Brush Neck Cove, Apponaug
Cove, Warwick Cove, Buttonwoods Cove, and
the west side of the bay along Post Road [141].
As of luly 1, 2011, there were 12,141 available
sewer line connections with 9,089 properties
connected within the Warwick section of the
watershed. Since some of the sewer connections
(1,536) front vacant lots, the connection rate to
sewers within the watershed was 85.7% [142].
However, there are still 6,933 houses within
the watershed that do not have access to
sewers and rely on septic systems or cesspools
for disposal of domestic wastewater [143].
Closure of the bay to shellfishing in 1993
prompted the formation of the Greenwich Bay
Initiative (GBI). The purpose of this program,
involving many agencies and organizations,
was to assess the physical conditions within the
watershed and their impact on the water quality
of Greenwich Bay. The fish kill in 2003 and the
desire to continue the work of the GBI led to
the creation of the Greenwich Bay Special Area
Management Plan [7] to assess the condition
of the bay, identify sources of pollution, and
make recommendations on how to "work with
communities to restore, protect, and balance
the uses of Greenwich Bay" [144]. While much
work remains to be done, history has shown that
the public is willing to invest in infrastructure
to improve water quality in Greenwich Bay.
Fisheries
There have been effects on the fisheries in
Greenwich Bay besides those of water quality.
By 1981 overfishing had deteriorated the
quahog fishery in Greenwich Bay [145]. To
restore the fishery, RIDEM declared Greenwich
Bay a shellfish management area, closed it
to shellfishing for two years, and restocked
the bay with transplants from Greenwich
Cove. When Greenwich Bay was reopened
in the winter of 1982-83, the quahog fishery
was managed by reducing the daily catch
limit and limiting commercial fishing from
boats to just the winter months [145].
Fish abundance data for just Greenwich
Bay are limited. In 1993, a study by RIDEM
indentified 41 species of juvenile and adult fish
in Greenwich Bay. The most abundant species
were bait fish, but several other species of interest
to recreational fishermen (alewife, bluefish,
winter flounder, striped bass, and tautog) were
considered common. A study that used fish
data collected in Narragansett Bay showed
that, in general, fish stocks declined during
the second half of the twentieth century [111].
Comparison of the contents of fish trawls taken
in 1960 and 2000, showed that abundance and
species composition offish in Narragansett Bay
changed over this time [111]. Abundance of
northern species, such as winter flounder and
northern sea robin, decreased. Abundance of
all bottom fish (for example, tautog, flounders,
skate, sea robins) decreased, while abundance
of some pelagic fish, such as bluefish and butter
fish (but not scup), increased. As the bottom fish
decreased, blue crabs, lady crabs, cancer crabs,
and lobsters increased. These changes may be the
result of fishing pressure, climate (warmer winter
water temperatures), or both [111]. Although
these data are from Narragansett Bay, similar
changes most likely occurred in Greenwich Bay.
Marinas and Boating
Greenwich Bay and its coastline historically have
been important for boating-related commercial
and recreational activities, and the increased
population during the Suburbanization Period
brought many more recreational boaters to the
bay. From 1978 to 2005, the number of marinas
and yacht clubs in Greenwich Bay increased from
19 to 33, and the number of boat slips increased
from 2,391 to 3,419 [7]. To see the increase in
marinas from an earlier time, 1950, we looked
at historical aerial photos (RIGIS, 1939 to 2003).
Since not all the photographs were clear enough
to count individual boat slips we measured dock
length as an indicator of growth in marinas and
boating (Fig. 12). The 1939 aerial photographs
had no docks, only five large boats (probably at
a shipyard) on the northern shore of Greenwich
Cove, and numerous moorings in Greenwich,
Suburbanization 39
-------
In the last half of the twentieth century, marinas have filled Warwick Cove.
(Photo by Christopher Deacutis, Narragansett Bay Estuary Program)
Apponaug, Warwick, and Brush Neck Coves.
It is not surprising that no docks were visible
in the 1939 aerial photographs because docks
in Greenwich Bay had been badly damaged in
the 1938 hurricane, which subjected the bay to
flood tides 13 feet above normal high water [77].
The number of linear dock feet, which included
marinas, yacht clubs, and commercial and private
docks, increased 37-fold from 1,143 ft in 1951
to 42,716 ft in 2003. Most of the docks were in
marinas (62% in 1951, 82% in 1962, and 87 to 96%
in later years). Warwick Cove had the greatest
linear feet of docks, 47% of the total in 2003.
What are the effects of boating and marinas on
the bay? The majority of boats using Greenwich
Bay are power boats [146]. Power boats can be
noisy (disrupting birds and other fauna) and
disturb bottom sediments and
aquatic vegetation in shallow
areas. Petroleum hydrocarbons
from boat engine exhaust
and oily bilges can pollute the
water and sediment. Discharge
of sewage from boats can
introduce disease-carrying
bacteria and viruses to the water.
Greenwich Bay is a no-discharge
area for boats, and marinas
have pump-out stations, but
illegal discharge probably still
occurs. Sewage from boats is
worse than from other sources
because it is more concentrated,
and might contain treatment
chemicals that disinfect the
waste or control odors [147].
The concentration of boats at
marinas can cause pollution
problems. The construction
of a marina limits water
circulation, and thus
concentrates pollutants in the
water column and sediment
[147]. Chemicals used in
boat maintenance (oil, acid
from batteries and cleaning
compounds, surfactants, and
solvents) can wash down into
the water if best management
procedures are not used to
contain them [147]. Potentially
toxic metals can be released from a number
of marine operations: copper and tributyltin
(banned since 2003) in antifouling paint;
arsenic in boat paint pigments; and arsenic,
chromium, and copper from docks, pilings and
other structures built with chromated copper
arsenate-treated wood [147]. Spills of gasoline,
diesel fuel, and oil while fueling, petroleum
hydrocarbons from boat engine exhaust, and
oily bilge water can contaminate water and
sediments. A study of PAHs (compounds
commonly found in petroleum oils) in surface
sediments in Warwick, Brush Neck, Apponaug,
and Greenwich Coves found that the cove
sediments had higher concentrations than
sediment taken from the middle of Greenwich
Bay [81]. The concentrations of PAHs in cove
u
o
Q
50,000 -,
40,000
o 30,000
20,000 -
10,000-
1951
1962
1972
1981
1992
2003
Year
Figure 12. Length of docks (marinas, yacht clubs, commercial, and private docks)
in Greenwich Bay measured from historical aerial photographs (RIGIS).
40 Imprint of the Past
-------
sediments were above the concentration at
which occasional adverse biological effects could
be expected [81]. Concentrations of PAHs are
generally higher in coves than the open bay
because the coves are closer to the potential
sources—marinas, runoff, and sewers.
When marinas are built, habitat is lost. On
the shore, wetlands and vegetated buffers
are destroyed, and in the water, bottom
fauna (for example shellfish) is disrupted by
the initial building of docks and by regular
maintenance dredging. The hard surfaces of
docks, pilings, and other structures provide
habitat for fouling organisms that otherwise
would not have been there. The ecological
effects of marinas have not been well studied.
A study in Wickford Harbor, RI, comparing a
marina area to a small salt marsh cove found
no major differences in a number of ecological
indicators measured; however, concentrations
of copper (from antifouling paint) in sediments
were higher in the marina area [148]. The fish
species were found to be just as diverse at
both areas. The fouling communities on the
docks at the marinas appeared to be a source
of food for the small fish, but did increase the
oxygen demand of the marina cove water [148].
Shellfishing is not permitted at marinas but
this has had a positive effect on the quahogs in
Greenwich Bay. The shellfish beds under the
marinas serve as a source of brood stock for
the rest of the bay [7]. Other positive aspects
of marinas include providing recreational
boating opportunities, adding to the economy,
and providing pump-out facilities for boats.
The increase in the number of marinas and the
sizes of boats popular today has increased the
need for dredging the marinas and the channels
to them. There are three federal channels in
Greenwich Bay: the entrance to Greenwich Cove,
last dredged in 1891; Warwick Cove, last dredged
in 1966; and Apponaug Cove, last dredged in
1963. The dredge spoils from the 1963 dredging
of Apponaug Cove were used to fill a tidal flat
that now serves as a parking lot for recreational
boaters and fishermen [47]. The channel in
Apponaug Cove is shallower than its authorized
depth, but is a low priority for dredging because
the cove is used primarily for recreational, not
commercial, uses. The channel in Warwick Cove
is at depth, but according to boaters the current
channel location is dangerous to navigate [7].
The ecological issues with dredging are the
turbidity that is created during dredging and
the options for disposal of the dredged material.
Turbidity can negatively affect shellfish, fish
(especially during breeding season), and seagrass
beds, and can change the bottom substrate.
Options for disposal of dredged materials within
Greenwich Bay are limited [7]. The material used
for beach nourishment has to be relatively clean
and of a certain grain size [7]. Sediments from
marinas need to be tested for contaminants,
and disposal options can be expensive.
Summary of Suburbanization Period
During the Suburbanization Period (c. 1945 to
present), the ecological effects on Greenwich Bay
were caused primarily by the increased number
of people in the watershed. Farmland was
converted to residential and commercial uses,
causing an increase in the amount of impervious
surfaces in the watershed. More people meant
more sewage, more individual septic systems,
more stormwater, and thus more bacteria to
contaminate the bay. Bacterial contamination
caused additional areas to be closed to
shellfishing and caused some beach-closure days.
Increased input of nitrogen to the bay resulted in
eutrophication and low oxygen at times during
the summer months, which caused fish kills.
Eelgrass, an important habitat for scallops and
other biota, declined and is no longer found in
the bay. Scallops are gone. Overfishing depleted
the quahogs in Greenwich Bay; however,
management of this fishery restored its viability.
Hardened shorelines and groins have helped
protect the northern shoreline of Greenwich Bay
from erosion, but may give residents a false sense
of security for protection from major storms.
The increase in number and size of marinas has
contributed to an increase in hardened shoreline,
destruction of vegetated buffers and fringe
wetlands, affected water circulation patterns
around the docks and slips, and contributed to
sediment pollution in the marina areas.
Suburbanization 41
-------
In the 1890s, a shipyard was located on the shore of
Greenwich Cove just north of Division Street. Over the
years it was known by a number of different names.
In the early 1900s, it was called Nock's Shipyard,
as depicted in this postcard. Chepiwanoxet Island is
visible in the background. (Bruce MacGunnigle, private
collection)
This contemporary photograph shows Norton's
Shipyard & Marina, which is now located at
the same site. The Norton family has owned
the shipyard since 1966. The docks have been
extended and the boats are considerably larger
now. About 1915, fill was added and a causeway
built to connect Chepiwanoxet Island to the
mainland. Chepiwanoxet Point is visible in the
background. (Photograph by John Butler)
42 Imprint of the Past
-------
Summary
The presence of humans has clearly had
ecological effects on Greenwich Bay and its
watershed, especially in the last 150 years. The
major events and known ecological effects are
summarized in Table 8 and Figure 13. In the
Pre-Colonial Period (before 1650), the native
people utilized the abundant natural resources
available in Greenwich Bay and its watershed—
fish, shellfish, mammals, plants, trees, clay
deposits, and fresh water. They modified the
terrestrial habitat by clearing underbrush from
the woods to facilitate hunting. The decrease in
shell size found at an archeological site indicates
that populations of shellfish could have been
affected by human harvesting. In the early
1600s, loss of beavers, due to the fur trade, and
consequently loss of their dams might have
caused an increase in sediment in the coves.
However, the ecological effects of prehistoric
peoples and Native Americans on Greenwich Bay
were probably minimal. There are no published
scientific studies that show that this human
activity had a measurable effect on the bay.
During the Colonial Period (c. 1650 to c. 1750)
the settlers in the watershed cleared land,
planted crops, and grazed animals. They
utilized the natural resources of the bay and
watershed; they fished, collected shellfish, and
harvested salt marsh hay for their livestock.
Table 8. Summary of the major ecological effects of development on Greenwich Bay.
Pre-Colonial Period - before 1650
• Natives cleared underbrush
• Utilized marine resources, fish, shellfish
• Fur trade, loss of beaver
Colonial Period - c. 1650 to c. 1750
• Cleared land, farmed
Maritime Period - c. 1730 to c. 1820
• Cleared more land
• Built wharfs
Industrial Period - c. 1800 to c. 1945
• Population increased, more sewage
• Industries
• Built dams
• Building of Stonington Railroad
• Overfishing in Narragansett Bay
Minimal impact
Minimal impact
Might have increased sedimentation in coves
Probably increased sedimentation
^•^••^
Evidence of sedimentation in Apponaug Cove
Some changes to shoreline, loss of habitat
Bacterial contamination; shellfish bed closures
Chemical contamination of water and sediments
Obstructed anadromous fish runs in streams
Contributed to sedimentation
Depleted fish stocks, probably also in Greenwich Bay
Suburbanization Period - c. 1945 to present
• Population doubled, more sewage Bacterial contamination; shellfish bed and beach closures
• Nitrogen input increased Eutrophication; low DO; loss of eelgrass and scallops; fish kills
• Development of shoreline areas Loss of natural shallow water habitats and vegetated buffers
Summary 43
-------
Climate Great Flood Major Nor' Easter
1759 1761
Little Ice Age 224 ^3
Hurricanes
1807 1815 Big Gale
9 9 —
1700 1720 1740 1760 1780 1800 1820 1840
U
Revolutionary War
1775-1783
I
War of 1812
Present Warm Period
1860 1880 1900
U
Civil War
1861-65
1920
U
World War
1914-18
1938 1954 Carol
—9- — -9 —
1940 1960
U
World War II
1941-45
1991 Bob
f
1980 2000
50-
en
I
- 30-
"5
DL 20-
10-
Sediment Quality
100
50
0
j, ..drill
1816 1829 1840 1855 1870 1885 1900 1915 1929 1940 195E 1972 1980
Eelgrass
Abundant
Hrf* Vfrt* ITT* ffrH
Less abundant
2003
| 2006
1930s
1990s
Population
1st sewer lines
in East Greenwich
1896
^
/
r
**
X" — J
WWW
in/G
fa&
/ 1
Greenwich
Cove closed
to shellfishing
1946
Hypoxia in Apponaug Cove
Apponaug closed to
Cove shellfishing
1922 1936
Warwick
WWTF
1965
1
Massive
fish kill
inGB
2003
Greenwich Bay
closed to
shellfishing
1993-1994
Siomngton Union RR Warwick RR Electric trolley
Railroad (RR) Providence extended to Providence
built to Warwick Buttonwoods to Warwick 1910
1832-37 1865 1881
Figure 13. Timeline showing the population of the Greenwich Bay watershed, local and national events, and some
environmental trends in the bay. Population was estimated for the watershed using the road density method (see text).
Metal concentrations for 1815 to 1980 are from a core taken in the middle of Greenwich Bay [78]. Metal concentrations
for 2003 are from a surface grab sample (BSP 233) taken in the middle of Greenwich Bay [81].
They maintained woodlots for firewood and
lumber. Fresh water from springs and wells
supplied them with drinking water. The
amount of land cleared during this period
probably increased sedimentation in the bay.
As the land for farms became limited within
the watershed, the maritime economy grew.
During the Maritime Period (c. 1730 to c. 1820)
the waters of Greenwich Bay became more
important as a means of transportation. There
were some changes, although not major, to the
coastline as wharfs were built and shorelines
hardened. As more land was cleared there
was evidence of increased sedimentation,
especially in upper Apponaug Cove.
During the Industrial Period (c. 1800 to c. 1945),
especially after 1850, human activity caused
measurable ecological effects on Greenwich
Bay (Fig. 13). From 1810 to 1950, the estimated
population of the watershed increased 13-fold.
This caused a great increase in the amount of
sewage. Sewer lines were installed in the densely
populated section of East Greenwich. Water
was piped into homes, which probably caused
privy vaults and cesspools to overflow. The bay
waters became polluted with fecal bacteria, and
Greenwich and Apponaug Coves were closed
to shellfishing. Industries in the watershed
polluted the bay with chemicals. Episodes
of low oxygen occurred in Apponaug Cove.
Building of the Stonington Railroad probably
contributed to sedimentation in Greenwich
Cove. The upper end of Apponaug Cove was
divided by the railroad bridge, causing changes
in circulation and sedimentation patterns.
Dams built on Apponaug and Hardig Brooks
and the Maskerchugg River obstructed the
44 Imprint of the Past
-------
passage of anadromous fish. Overfishing
depleted the fish stocks in Narragansett Bay
and probably affected fish in Greenwich Bay.
During the Suburbanization Period (c. 1945 to
present) the ecological effects on the bay were
caused primarily by the increased number of
people in the watershed. From 1950 to 2000 the
population in the watershed doubled. Farmland
was converted to residential and commercial
uses. The large increase in population led to
more sewage, more individual septic systems,
more stormwater runoff, and thus, more
bacteria to contaminate the bay. Bacterial
contamination caused additional areas to be
closed to shellfishing and also caused some
beach-closure days. Increased input of nitrogen
to the bay resulted in eutrophication, which
caused low oxygen at times during the summer
months, which in turn caused fish kills. Eelgrass,
an important habitat for scallops, declined and
is no longer found in the bay. Scallops are also
gone. These ecological problems prompted
the formation, in 1993, of the Greenwich Bay
Initiative (GBI), which assessed the physical
conditions in the watershed and their effect
on water quality. In 2005, efforts started with
the GBI were continued with the creation of
the Greenwich Bay Special Area Management
Plan that updated the assessment of physical
conditions in the watershed, identified pollution
sources, and included recommendations for
restoring and protecting Greenwich Bay. Recent
models of water circulation patterns indicated
that under certain conditions water from upper
Narragansett Bay could be swept into Greenwich
Bay and probably affect some conditions, such
as the amount of nitrogen in the bay. This
suggests that in addition to managing pollution
within the Greenwich Bay watershed, better
management of environmental conditions in
Narragansett Bay, especially in the upper bay,
is needed to protect waters in Greenwich Bay.
Studies of environmental history are important.
This ecological history of Greenwich Bay enables
us to see the connection between development
in the watershed and effects on the ecology of
the bay. People have short memories. Today,
citizens of the watershed see the abundant
quahog harvests, but they might not know that
over one hundred years ago the bay was filled
with eelgrass and had a productive scallop
fishery. This history allows us to appreciate
the natural resources that were present in the
bay before the major impacts of the last 150
years. Environmental conditions have been
changing since initial European settlement,
and we can expect additional changes in the
future. Sea-level rise (more flooding), climate
change (increase in severity of storms, warmer
water temperatures), and contamination from
chemicals of emerging concern (see Appendix B)
will pose new challenges. The response to these
challenges, whether toward a cleaner, healthier
environment or toward continued degradation,
will depend on the management decisions made
at the local and regional levels. The plans for the
continuing improvements to Warwick's sewage
system, along with the other recommendations
in the Greenwich Bay Special Area Management
Plan, and improvements in water quality in upper
Narragansett Bay could prevent or decrease
negative ecological impacts in the future. This
historical analysis of Greenwich Bay provides
information for scientists, managers, and
citizens on the consequences of development
and gives managers a foundation on which
to make informed decisions for the future.
Summary 45
-------
-------
References
1. Perciasepe, R., D. Gardiner, and J.
Cannon. 1994. Toward a Place-driven
Approach: The Edgewater Consensus of
an EPA Strategy for Ecosystem Protection.
U.S. EPA: Washington, D.C. 13 pp.
2. Anastas, P.T. 2010. The Path Forward.
[last updated February 4, 2011]
[cited 2012 January 14]; Available
from: http://www.epa.gov/research/
htm/anastas/path-forward .htm.
3. Pesch, C.E. and J. Garber. 2001. Historical
analysis, a valuable tool in community-
based environmental protection. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 42(5):339-349.
4. Pearce, J. 1999. Historic reconstruction
of ecological effects. Marine Pollution
Bulletin 38(4):233-234.
5. Cicchetti, G. and H. Greening. 2011.
Estuarine biotope mosaics and habitat
management goals: An application
in Tampa Bay, FL, USA. Estuaries
and Coasts 34(6):1278-1292.
6. Shumchenia, E.J., C.E. Pesch, M.C. Pelletier,
M. Pryor, G. Cicchetti, and C. Deacutis.
A biological condition gradient model
for historical assessment of estuarine
habitat structure. In preparation. Graduate
School of Oceanography, University of
Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI. 28 pp.
7. University of Rhode Island, Coastal
Resources Center. 2005. Greenwich
Bay Special Area Management Plan.
Coastal Resources Management
Council: Wakefield, RI. 498 pp.
8. Codiga, D.L., H.E. Stoffel, C.F. Deacutis, S.
Kiernan, and C. Oviatt. 2009. Narragansett
Bay hypoxic event characteristics based
on fixed-site monitoring network
time series: intermittency, geographic
distribution, spatial synchronicity,
and interannual variability. Estuaries
and Coasts. 32(4):621-641.
9. Bergondo, D.L. 2004. Examining the
process controlling water column
variability in Narragansett Bay: time
series data and numerical modeling.
Ph.D. thesis in Oceanography, University
of Rhode Island: Kingston, RI. 195 pp.
10. Boothroyd, J.C., S.J. McCandless, and
M.J. Dowling. 2003. Quaternary Geologic
Map of Rhode Island. Kingston, RI.
11. Boothroyd, J.C. and P.V. August. 2008.
Geologic and contemporary landscapes
of the Narragansett Bay ecosystem. In
Science for Ecosystem-based Management:
Narragansett Bay in the 21st century,
p. 1-34. A. Desbonnet and B.A. Costa-
Pierce, Editors. Springer: New York.
12. McMaster, R.L. 1984. Holocene
stratigraphy and depositional history
of the Narragansett Bay System, Rhode
Island, USA. Sedimentology 31:777-792.
13. Vinhateiro, N.D., J.W. King, J.W. Robinson,
and C.M. Reddy. 2007. Holocene
stratigraphy and environmental history of a
shallow water embayment in Narragansett
Bay, RI. Poster presented at Estuarine
Research Federation, Biennial Conference,
November 2007: Providence, RI.
14. DiMilla, P.A., S.W. Nixon, A.J. Oczkowski,
M.A. Altabet, and R.A. McKinney. 2011.
Some challenges of an "upside-down"
nitrogen budget - Science and management
in Greenwich Bay, RI (USA). Marine
Pollution Bulletin 62(4):672-680.
15. Rhode Island Historical Preservation
Commission. 1981. Warwick, Rhode Island.
Statewide Historical Preservation Report.
Providence: Rhode Island Historical
Preservation Commission. 79 pp.
16. D'Amato, D.A. 1996. Warwick. Images
of America Series. Arcadia Publishing:
Dover, NH. 128 pp.
References 47
-------
17. Satchwill, R.J. and C.L. Gray. 1994.
The Fisheries Resources of Greenwich
Bay, Rhode Island, 1993. Rhode
Island Department of Environmental
Management: Wakefield, RI. 68 pp.
18. Rhode Island Historical Preservation
& Heritage Commission. 2002. Native
American Archaeology in Rhode Island.
Rhode Island Historical Preservation &
Heritage Commission: Providence. 64 pp.
19. Bernstein, D.J. 1993. Prehistoric Subsistence
on the Southern New England Coast, the
Record from Narragansett Bay. Academic
Press, Inc.: San Diego. 188 pp.
20. Braun, D.P. 1974. Explanatory
models for the evolution of coastal
adaptations in prehistoric New England.
American Antiquity 39:582-596.
21. Anderson, P. and T. Webb, III. 1980.
Two short cores from Greenwich
Cove area, Rhode Island. Presented
at 20th Annual meeting of the
Northeastern Anthropological
Association, 1980: Amherst, MA.
22. Lavin, L. 1988. Coastal adaptations in
southern New England and southern
New York. Archaeology of Eastern
North America 16:101-120.
23. McBride, K.A. and R.E. Dewar. 1987.
Agriculture and cultural evolution: Causes
and effects in the lower Connecticut
River valley. In Emergent Horticultural
Economies of the Eastern Woodlands, p.
305-328. W.F. Keegan, Editor. Southern
Illinois University: Carbondale.
24. Greenspan, R.L. 1990. Unpublished.
Determination of seasonality on Mercenaria
mercenaria shells from archaeological
sites on Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island.
Cited in Bernstein, D.J. 1993 [#19 above].
25. Kerber, J.E. 1984. Prehistoric human
ecology and changing environment
of Potowomut Neck, Warwick, Rhode
Island: An interdisciplinary approach.
Ph.D. thesis in Anthropology, Brown
University, Providence, RI. 264 pp.
26. Kerber, J.E. 1985. Digging for clams:
shell midden analysis in New England.
North American Archaeologist 6:97-113.
27. McPartland, M.R. 1960. The History
of East Greenwich, Rhode Island 1677-
1960: with Related Genealogy. East
Greenwich Free Library Association:
East Greenwich, RI. 300 pp.
28. Wroth, E.G. 1970. The Voyages of Giovanni
da Verrazzano 1524 - 1528. New Haven:
Yale University Press (published for The
Pierpont Morgan Library). 319 pp.
29. Patterson, W.A. and K.E. Sassman.
1988. Indian Fires in the prehistory
of New England. In Holocene Human
Ecology in Northeastern North America.
p. 107-136. G.P. Nichols, Editor.
Plenum Press: New York.
30. Foster, D.R., G. Motzkin, J. O'Keefe, E.
Boose, D. Orwig, J. Fuller, and B. Hall,
The environmental and human history
of New England. In Forest in Time: The
Environmental Consequences of 1,000
Years of Change in New England, p. 43-
100. D.R. Foster and J.D. Aber, Editors.
2004, Yale University Press: New Haven.
31. Maloney, F.X. 1967. The Fur Trade
in New England 1620-1676. Archon
Books: Hamden, CT. 150 pp.
32. Fuller, O.P. 1875. The History of Warwick
Rhode Island: Settlement in 1642 to
the Present Time. Angell, Burlingame
& Co.: Providence. 380 pp.
33. Naiman, R.J., C.A. Johnston, and J.C. Kelley.
1988. Alterations of North American
streams by beaver. Bioscience 38(11):
754-762.
34. Ruedemann, R. and W.J. Schoonmaker.
1938. Beaver-dams as geologic
agents. Science 88(2292):523-525.
48 Imprint of the Past
-------
35. Niering, W.A. 1998. Forces that shaped the
forests of the northeastern United States.
Northeastern Naturalist 5(2):99-110.
36. Foster, D.R. and G. Motzkin. 2003.
Interpreting and conserving the openland
habitats of coastal New England: insights
from landscape history. Forest Ecology
and Management 185:127-150.
37. Boesch, M. 1996. Wetlands and their
effect on your life. In A History of East
Greenwich Rhode Island, as Published
in the East Greenwich Packet, p. 17-22.
T.H. Adumson, Editor. East Greenwich
Preservation Society: East Greenwich.
38. D'Amato, D.A. 2009. Warwick's Villages
Glimpses from the Past. American
Chronicles A History Series. The
History Press: Charleston, SC.
39. Greene, E.B. and V.D. Harrington.
1966. American Population Before
the Federal Census of 1790. Peter
Smith: Gloucester, MA. 228 pp.
40. Goode, G.B. and Associates. 1884.
The Fisheries and Fishery Industries
of the United States. Government
Printing Office: Washington, D.C.
41. The Sounds Conservancy Inc. 1992.
Perspective on shellfisheries in southern
New England. G.C. Mattheissen, Editor.
The Sounds Conservancy, Inc.:
Essex, Connecticut. 56 pp.
42. Harper, R.M. 1918. Changes in the forest
area of New England in three centuries.
Journal of Forestry 16:442-452.
43. Hooker, T.D. and J.E. Compton. 2003.
Forest ecosystem carbon and nitrogen
accumulation during the first century
after agricultural abandonment.
Ecological Applications 13(2):299-313.
44. Brush, G.S. 1989. Rates and
patterns of estuarine sediment
accumulation. Limnology and
Oceanography 34(7):1235-1246.
45. Coleman, P.J. 1963. The Transformation
of Rhode Island 1790-1860. Providence:
Brown University Press. 314 pp.
46. Kulik, G. and J.C. Bonham. 1978. Rhode
Island: An Inventory of Historic Engineering
and Industrial Sites. U.S. Department
of Interior, Heritage Conservation
and Recreation Service, Office of
Archeology and Historic Preservation,
Historic American Engineering
Record: Washington, D.C. 296 pp.
47. Pratt, S.D. and G.L. Seavey. 1981. The
Environment of Apponaug Inner Cove and
the Impact of Development on the Cove.
Graduate School of Oceanology, University
of Rhode Island: Kingston, RI. 61 pp.
48. Cole, J.R. 1889. History of Washington
and Kent Counties. W.W. Preston
& Co.: New York. 1344 pp.
49. Arnold, E.G. 1927. Historical Sketch of
East Greenwich. In That There may be a
Permanent and Enduring Record of the
Two Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary
Celebration of the Founding of the Town
of East Greenwich, Rhode Island, Souvenir
Program 1677-1927, p. 3-25. Town of
East Greenwich: East Greenwich, RI.
50. East Greenwich Tercentenary Commission.
1977. 300 Years: The Tercentenary
Book East Greenwich, Rhode Island
1677-1977. Rhode Island Pendulum:
East Greenwich, RI. 96 pp.
51. Greene, D.H. 1877. History of the Town of
East Greenwich and Adjacent Territory from
1677 to 1877. J.A. and R.A. Reid: Providence.
52. Rhode Island Historical Preservation
Commission. 1974. East Greenwich, Rhode
Island, Statewide Preservation Report.
Rhode Island Historical Preservation
Commission: Providence. 43 pp.
53. D'Amato, D.A. 2010. Warwick's Villages
& Historic Places, [cited 2010 May 10];
Available from: http://www.warwick history.
References 49
-------
com/index.php?option=com_con
tent&view=category&id=43 &Itemid=96.
54. Glover, D.R. and J.L. Simon. 1975. Th e effect
of population density on infrastructure:
the case of road building. Economic
Development and Cultural Change
23(3):453-468.
55. East Greenwich Historic Preservation
Society. 2006. East Greenwich.
Images from America Series. Arcadia
Publishing: Charleston, SC. 127 pp.
56. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. 1891. East
Greenwich. Sanborn-Parris Map Co.:
New York.
57. Adamson, T.H. 1996. The Old Port of
East Greenwich. In A History of East
Greenwich, Rhode Island as Published in
The East Greenwich Packets, p. 187-189.
T.H. Adamson, Editor. East Greenwich
Preservation Society: East Greenwich, RI.
58. Rice, C.A. 1996. Boat Building in
Greenwich Cove. In A History of East
Greenwich Rhode Island, as Published in
the East Greenwich Packets, p. 63. T.H.
Adamson, Editor. The East Greenwich
Historical Society: East Greenwich, RI.
59. RI-Photo.com. 2010. Chepiwanoxet Island.
[cited 2010 September 22]; Available
from: www.ri-photo.com/places/warwick/
chepiwanoxet-wildlife-preserve.
60. U.S. Centennial of Flight Commission.
2003. The First U.S. Aircraft Manufacturing
Companies, [last updated August 28,
2009] [cited September 23, 2010]; Available
from: http://www.centennialofflight.gov/
essay/Aerospace/earlyU.S/Aerol.htm.
61. Scott, 1. 2000. Edson Gallaudet. [last
updated May 30, 2011] [cited 2010
September 23]; Available from:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/
question/history/qOOOl.shtml.
62. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. 1884.
East Greenwich. Sanborn Map &
Publishing Co.: New York.
63. Beers, D.G. 1870. Atlas of the State of
Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.
D.G. Beers & Co.: Philadelphia.
64. Bixby, W.H. 1893. Preliminary Examination
of Apponaug Harbor, Cowesset Bay, Rhode
Island and Preliminary Examination
of Greenwich Harbor, Greenwich Bay,
Rhode Island. In Annual Report of
the Chief of Engineers, United States
Army to the Secretary of War for the
year 1893, p. 869-872. Government
Printing Office: Washington, D.C.
65. Livermore, W.R. 1891. Improvement of
Greenwich Bay, Rhode Island. In Annual
Report of the Chief of Engineers United
States Army to the Secretary of War for
the year 1891, p. 716-717. Government
Printing Office: Washington, D.C.
66. Havan-Orumieh, M. 1990. The Effect
of Industrial Development on the
Sediment Contamination of Apponaug
Cove, A historical Analysis. M.A.
thesis in Marine Affairs, University of
Rhode Island, Kingston, RI. 185 pp.
67. Seamans, V.W. 1996. The various
sources for Rhode Island water supply
through the years. In A History of East
Greenwich, Rhode Island as Published in
the East Greenwich Packet, p. 145-146.
T.H. Adamson, Editor. East Greenwich
Preservation Society: East Greenwich, RI.
68. Kent County Water Authority. 2005.
[last updated May 11, 2011] [cited 2011
May 18]; Available from: http://www.
kentcountywater.org/default.aspx.
69. Tarr, J.A., J. McCurley, III, F.C. McMichael,
and T. Yosie. 1984. Water and Wastes: a
retrospective assessment of wastewater
technology in the United States, 1800-1932.
Technology and Culture 25(2):226-263.
50 Imprint of the Past
-------
70. Shedd, Sarle and Shedd Engineers. 1893.
Preliminary Plan for a System of Sewers
at East Greenwich, RI. Providence. (Map
of preliminary plan of sewer lines along
streets with sites of overflows to cove.)
71. W. G. Wheelock Jr. Engineers. 1897.
East Greenwich Sewers (map).
72. Shedd and Sarle Engineers. 1896. East
Greenwich Sewers. Providence. (Map of
sewers on King, Main, Spring, Bedford,
and Pierce Streets.)
73. Paccillo, M. Department of Public
Works, East Greenwich, personal
communication, 7 October 2010.
74. Charles, M.J. and R.A. Hites. 1987.
Sediments as archives of environmental
pollution trends. In Sources and Fates of
Aquatic Pollutants, p. 365-389. R.A. Hites
and S.J. Eisenreich, Editors. American
Chemical Society: Washington, D.C.
75. Coates, V.T., T. Fabian, and M. McDonald.
1982. Nineteenth Century Technology -
Twentieth Century Problems: A Retrospec-
tive Miniassessment. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency: Washington, D.C.
76. Hawes, E. 1993. Historic Sources of Pollu-
tion in Portland Harbor, 1840-1970. Casco
Bay Estuary Project, CBCE 001553-01.
77. Kennedy, S. and V. Lee. 2003. Greenwich
Bay: An Ecological History. Rhode Island
Sea Grant: Narragansett, RI. 32 pp.
78. Corbin, J.M. 1989. Recent and Historical
Accumulation of Trace Metal Contaminants
in the Sediment of Narragansett Bay,
Rhode Island. M.S. thesis in Oceanography,
University of Rhode Island, Graduate School
of Oceanography: Kingston, RI. 295 pp.
79. Nixon, S.W. and R.W. Fulweiler. 2011.
Ecological footprints and shadows in
an urban estuary, Narragansett Bay, RI
(USA). Regional Environmental Change,
DOI: 10.1007/S10113-011-0221-1.
80. Murray, D.W., W.L. Prell, C.E. Rincon,
and E. Saarman. 2007. Physical property
and chemical characteristics of surface
grab samples from Narragansett Bay
and the Providence and Seekonk Rivers,
a summary of the Brown University
Narragansett Bay Sediment Project
(BUNBSP). Narragansett Bay Estuary
Program, NBEP-07-127: Providence. 47 pp.
81. Hartmann, P.C., J.G. Quinn, R.W. Carins,
and J.W. King. 2004. The distribution and
sources of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
in Narragansett Bay surface sediments.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 48:352-358.
82. Latimer, J.S. and J.G. Quinn. 1996.
Historical trends and current inputs
of hydrophobic organic compounds
in an urban estuary: the sediment
record. Environmental Science &
Technology 30(2):623-633.
83. Hartmann, P.C., J.G. Quinn, R.W. Cairns,
and J.W. King. 2005. Depositional
history of organic contaminants in
Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island, USA.
Marine Pollution Bulletin 50:388-395.
84. Bender, M., D. Kester, D. Cullen, W. King,
S. Bricker, and W. Miller. 1989. Distribution
of trace metals in the water column,
sediments and shellfish of Narragansett
Bay. Narragansett Bay Estuary Program
NBP-89-25: Providence. 336 pp.
85. Pruell, R.J., C.B. Norwood, R.D. Bowen,
R.E. Palmquist, and S.J. Fluck. 1988.
Organic Contaminants in Quahogs,
Mercenaria mercenaria, Collected from
Narragansett Bay. Narragansett Bay Estuary
Project NBP-88-05: Providence. 50 pp.
86. Horsley, S.W. 1981. Trace Metal Pollution
in Narragansett Bay: A Case Study of
the Rhode Island Quahog Fishery. M.A.
References 51
-------
thesis in Marine Affairs, University of
Rhode Island: Kingston, RI. 83 pp.
87. Quinn, J.G., J.S. Latimer, L.A. Leblanc,
and J.T. Ellis. 1992. Assessment of
Organic Contaminants in Narragansett
Bay Sediments and Hard Shell Clams.
Narragansett Bay Estuary Program,
NBP-92-111: Narragansett, RI. 65 pp.
88. Brown, H.S., R. Goble, and C.C. Mao. 1992.
Assessment of Hazards of Contaminants
in Seafood. Narragansett Bay Estuary
Program, NBP-92-105: Providence. 34 pp.
89. Kipp, K.V. 1991. Health Risk from
Chemically Contaminated Seafood
"Briefing Paper" and Proceedings from
Narragansett Bay Project Management
Committee. Narragansett Bay Estuary
Program, NBP-91-62: Providence. 49 pp.
90. Taylor, D.L., J.C. Linehan, D.W. Murray,
and W.L. Prell. 2012. Indicators of sediment
and biotic mercury contamination
in a southern New England estuary.
Marine Pollution Bulletin DOI:
10.1016/j.marpolbul.2012.01.013.
91. Gage, S.D. and P.C. McGouldrick. 1924.
Report on investigation of the pollution of
certain Rhode Island public waters during
1923 and 1924. Board of Purification
of Waters, State of Rhode Island and
Providence Plantations: Providence.
92. Nowicki, B.L. and J.H. McKenna.
1992. A Preliminary assessment of
Environmental Quality in Greenwich
Bay. Narragansett Bay Estuary Program,
NBP-92-96: Providence. 38 pp.
93. Mead, A.D. 1898. Peridium and
the 'Red Water' in Narragansett
Bay. Science VIII(203):707-709.
94. Nixon, S.W. 1989. An extraordinary red
tide and fish kill in Narragansett Bay.
In Coastal and Estuarine Studies - Novel
Phytoplankton Blooms, Causes and
Impacts of Recurrent Brown Tides and
Other Unusual Blooms, p. 429-447. E.M.
Cosper, V.M. Bricelj, and E.J. Carpenter,
Editors. Springer-Verlag: New York.
95. Baird, S.F. 1873. Report on the Condition
of the Sea Fisheries of the South Coast
of New England in 1871 and 1872.
United States Commission of Fish and
Fisheries: Washington, D.C. 831 pp.
96. Commissioners of Inland Fisheries.
1899. Twenty-ninth Annual Report
of the Commissioners of Inland
Fisheries. Providence, RI. 112 pp.
97. Commissioners of Inland Fisheries.
1882-1922. Annual Reports of the
Commissioner of Inland Fisheries,
Rhode Island. Providence, RI.
98. DeAlteris, J.T., M. Gibson, and E.G.
Skrobe. 2000. Fisheries of Rhode
Island. Narragansett Bay Summit
2000 White Paper. University of
Rhode Island: Kingston, RI. 48 pp.
99. Pratt, S.D. 1988. Status of the Hard Clam
Fishery in Narragansett Bay. Narragansett
Bay Project, NEP-88-07: Providence.
94pp. '
100. Boyd, J.R. 1990. The Narragansett
Bay shellfish industry: a historical
perspective and an overview of
problems of the 1990s. In First Rhode
Island Shellfisheries Conference, p. 3-10.
University of Rhode Island, Rhode
Island Sea Grant: Narragansett, RI.
101. Rice, M.A. 1992. The Northern Quahog:
The Biology of Mercenaria mercenaria,
C. Jaworski and M. Schwartz, Editors.
Rhode Island Sea Grant, RUI-B-92-001:
Narragansett, RI. 60 pp.
102. Greenwood, R.E. 1986. A short report
on the historical significance of the
former Arnold's boat slip, Water
Street, Scalloptown, East Greenwich,
Rhode Island. Unpublished 2 pp.
103. Thayer, G.W., D.A. Wolfe, and
R.B. Williams. 1975. The impact
52 Imprint of the Past
-------
of man on seagrass systems.
American Scientist 63:278-296.
104. Short, F.T. and C.A. Short. 1984. The
seagrass filter: purification of coastal waters.
In The Estuary as a Filter, p. 395-413. V.S.
Kennedy, Editor. Academic Press: Orlando.
105. Kopp, B.S., A.M. Doherty, and S.W. Nixon.
1995. A guide to site-selection for eel-grass
restoration projects in Narragansett Bay,
Rhode Island. Rhode Island Aquafund
Program, Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management: Providence.
106. Cottam, C. 1945. Eelgrass conditions along
the Atlantic Seaboard of North America.
The Plant Disease Reporter 29(12):302-310.
107. Erkan, D.E. 2002. Strategic Plan for
the Restoration of Anadromous Fishes
to Rhode Island Coastal Streams.
RI Department of Environmental
Management: Providence. 83 pp.
108. Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management. 2010. Annual Report to
the Governor on the Activities of the
Dam Safety Program. RI Department of
Environmental Management: Providence.
25 pp plus 14-page attachment.
109. Buckley, B. and S.W. Nixon. 2001. An
Historical Assessment of Anadromous
Fish in the Blackstone River. University of
Rhode Island, School of Oceanography:
Narragansett, RI. 26 pp.
110. Commissioners of Inland Fisheries. 1875.
Fifth Annual Report of the Commissioners
of Inland Fisheries. Providence, RI.
111. Oviatt, C., S. Olsen, M. Andrews, I. Collie,
T. Lynch, and K. Reposa. 2003. A century
of fishing and fish fluctuations in
Narragansett Bay. Reviews in Fisheries
Science ll(3):221-242.
112. D'Amato, D.A. 1992. Warwick's 350-
Year Heritage. Virginia Beach, VA:
The Donning Company. 224 pp.
113. Tremblay, D.R. 2010. Old Buttonwoods.
Warwick, RI: David R. Tremblay. 428 pp.
114. Devens, R.M. 1881. Our First Century:
being a popular descriptive portraiture
of the One Hundred Great and
Memorable Events. Vol. 1. C.A. Nichols
& Co.: Springfield, MA. 1007 pp.
115. Crowley, K., M. Pryor, and R. Ribb. 2000.
Land Use and Transportation in the
Narragansett Bay Watershed: Issues and
Challenges. Narragansett Bay Summit 2000
White Paper. Narragansett, RI. 47 pp.
116. Mule, M.P., F.C. Golet, and F.J. Presley.
2005. Inventory and prioritization of
potential riparian buffer restoration
sites in the Greenwich Bay and Buckeye
Brook watersheds, Rhode Island.
RI Department of Environmental
Management, Office of Sustainable
Watersheds: Providence, RI. 93 pp.
117. Tiner, R.W., I.J. Huber, T. Nuerminger, and
A.L. Mandeville. 2003. An inventory of
coastal wetlands, potential restoration sites,
wetland buffers, and hardened shorelines
for the Narragansett Bay Estuary. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region:
Hadley, MA. In cooperation with the
University of Massachusetts-Amherst,
the University of Rhode Island, and the
Narragansett Bay Estuary Program.
National Wetlands Inventory Cooperative
Interagency Report. 40 pp plus Appendices.
118. Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management. 2011. State of Rhode Island
2010 303(d) List: List of Impaired Waters,
Final. RI Department of Environmental
Management: Providence. 118 pp.
119. Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management. 1993. Emergency Closure of
Shellfish Grounds Notice. Editor Providence
Journal-Bulletin: Providence, RI.
120. Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management. 2010.
Notice of Polluted Shellfish Grounds,
References 53
-------
May 2010. Available from: www.dem.
ri.gov/maps/mapfile/shellfish.pdf.
121. Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management. 2011.
Notice of Polluted Shellfishing
Grounds, May 2011. Providence, RI.
122. Ganz, A. Rhode Island Department of
Environmental Management retired,
personal communication, 10 April 2012.
123. Mullen, J. Rhode Island Department
of Health, personal communication,
17 February 2012.
124. Rhode Island Department of Health. 2007-
2010. Rhode Island Department of Health
Beach Program, Season Report, [cited 2011
August 30]; Available from: http://www.
ribeaches.org/pdflib/RI%20Beach%20
Program%202007%20Season%20Report.
pdf, http://files.gegov.com/Filesystem/51/
pdflib/2008%20Beacb%20Program%20
Season%20Report.pdf, http://files.gegov.
com/Filesystem/51/pdflib/2009%20
Season%20Report%5Bl%5D.pdf,
http://files.gegov.com/Filesystem/51/
pdflib/2010%20Season%20Report.pdf.
125. Ryther, J.H. and W.M. Dunstan. 1971.
Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Eutrophication
in the Coastal Marine Environment.
Science 171(3975):1008-1013.
126. Granger, S., M. Brush, B. Buckley, M.
Traber, M. Richardson, and S.W. Nixon.
2000. An Assessment of Eutrophication in
Greenwich Bay, Restoring Water Quality in
Greenwich Bay: A Whitepaper Series. Rhode
Island Sea Grant: Narragansett, RI. 19 pp.
127. Brush, M.J. 2002. Development
of a numerical model for shallow
marine ecosystems with application
to Greenwich Bay. Ph.D. thesis in
Oceanography, University of Rhode
Island: Kingston, RI. 560 pp.
128. Deacutis, C.F. 2008. Evidence of
ecological impacts from excess nutrients
in upper Narragansett Bay. In Science
for Ecosystem-based Management:
Narragansett Bay in the 21st Century, p.
349-381. A. Desbonnet and B.A. Costa-
Pierce, Editors. Springer: New York.
129. Hamburg, S.P., D. Pryor, and M.A.
Vadeboncoeur. 2008. Nitrogen Inputs to
Narragansett Bay: An Historical Perspective.
In Science for Ecosystem-based Management:
Narragansett Bay in the 21st Century,
p. 177-210. A. Desbonnet and B.A. Costa-
Pierce, Editors. Springer: New York.
130. Nixon, S.W., B.A. Buckley, S.L. Granger,
L.A. Harris, A.J. Oczkowski, R.W.
Fulweiler, and L.W. Cole. 2008. Nitrogen
and Phosphorous Inputs to Narragansett
Bay: Past, Present, and Future. In Science
for Ecosystem-based Management:
Narragansett Bay in the 21st Century, p.
101-175. A. Desbonnet and B.A. Costa-
Pierce, Editors. Springer: New York.
131. Pryor, D., E. Saarman, D. Murray, and
W. Prell. 2007. Nitrogen Loading from
Wastewater Treatment Plants to Upper
Narragansett Bay. Narragansett Bay
Estuary Program: Narragansett, RI. 36 pp.
132. Vadeboncoeur, M.A., S.P. Hamberg,
and D. Pryor. 2010. Modeled nitrogen
loading to Narragansett Bay: 1850 to 2015.
Estuaries and Coasts 33(5):1113-1127.
133. Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management. 2003. The Greenwich Bay
fish kill - August 2003: causes, impacts and
responses. RI Department of Environmental
Management: Providence. 31 pp.
134. Bradley, M., K. Raposa, and S. Tuxbury.
2007. Report on the Analysis of True Color
Aerial Photography to Map and Inventory
Zostera marina L. in Narragansett
Bay and Block Island, Rhode Island.
Rhode Island Natural History Survey:
Kingston, RI. 17 pp plus 9 maps.
135. Dennison, W.C., R.J. Orth, K.A. Moore,
J.C. Stevenson, V. Carter, S. Kollar, P.W.
Bergstrom, and R.A. Batiuk. 1993. Assessing
54 Imprint of the Past
-------
water quality with submersed aquatic
vegetation. Bioscience 43(2):86-94.
136. Giesen, W.B.J.T., M.M. van Katwijk,
and C. den Hartog. 1990. Eelgrass
condition and turbidity in the Dutch
Wadden Sea. Aquatic Botany 37:71-85.
137. Deacutis, C. Narragansett Bay Estuary
Program, personal communication,
4Oct2011.
138. Thursby, G., D. Miller, S. Poucher, L.
Coiro, W. Munns, and T. Gleason. 2000.
Ambient aquatic life water quality criteria
for dissolved oxygen (saltwater): Cape Cod
to Cape Hatteras. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development, National Health
and Environmental Effects Research
Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division, EPA-
822-R-00-012: Narragansett, RI. 131 pp.
139. Stickney, A.P. and L.D. Stringer. 1957.
A study of the invertebrate bottom
fauna of Greenwich Bay, Rhode
Island. Ecology 38(1):111-122.
140. Rogers, J.M. 2008. Circulation and
transport in upper Narragansett Bay.
M.A. thesis in Oceanography, University
of Rhode Island: Kingston, RI. 95 pp.
141. Warwick Sewer Authority. 2006.
Mandatory Sewer Connection Program,
Amended Approach. Warwick Sewer
Authority: Warwick. 49 pp.
142. Boyd, J. Coastal Resources Management
Council, Warwick Sewer Authority data,
personal communication, 9 August 2011.
143. Owens, L. Warwick Sewer Authority,
personal communication, 2 September 2011.
144. Rhode Island Coastal Resources
Management Council. 2011. RI CRMC
Greenwich Bay Special Area Management
Plan, [cited 2011 May 26]; Available from:
http://www.crmc.ri.gov/samp_gb.html.
145. Lazar, N., A. Ganz, and A. Valliere.
1994. Quahog stock assessment and
implementation of an interim management
plan in Greenwich Bay, Rhode Island. In
Third Rhode Island Shellfisheries Conference,
p. 5-29. M.A. Rice and E. Gibbs, Editors.
Rhode Island Sea Grant: Narragansett, RI.
146. Brown, J.W. 1990. An analysis of
recreational boating on Narragansett Bay.
M.A. thesis in Marine Affairs, University
of Rhode Island: Kingston, RI. 293 pp.
147. Fields, S. 2003. The environmental pain
of pleasure boating. Environmental
Health Perspectives 111(4):A216-A223.
148. Nixon, S.W., C. Oviatt, and S.L. Northby.
1973. Ecology of small boat marinas. Rhode
Island Sea Grant: Narragansett, RI. 20 pp.
149. Lockwood, B. 1836. Map of the
Village of East Greenwich.
150. Harrison, A.M. 1868. Coweset Bay and
Vicinity, Rhode Island, Topographic
sheet T-912. U.S. Coast Survey.
151. Harrison, A.M. 1868. The Town
of East Greenwich and Vicinity,
Rhode Island, Topographic sheet
T-1079. U.S. Coast Survey.
152. Commissioners of Inland Fisheries.
1911. Forty-first Annual Report of the
Commissioners of Inland Fisheries,
Rhode Island. Providence, RI.
153. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. 1910. East
Greenwich. Sanborn Map Co.: New York.
References 55
-------
-------
Appendix A: Short How-to Guide on Historical
Reconstruction of Ecological Effects
Visit the area - Drive around the area and
get to know the residential, commercial, and
industrial areas. Look for old buildings and
learn the location of the "old section" of town.
Also look for the undeveloped areas and parks.
Become familiar with local history - Use
the resources at local libraries, local historical
societies, and online to learn the local cultural
history. State historical preservation commissions
may also have written reports on individual
towns. Initially, concentrate on sources that
give the big picture. You can go back and get
the details later. A great deal of written material
can now be found online using Google, Google
Books, and other search engines. The full text
of older books that are out of copyright can
sometimes be found online (try Google Books).
Look at old maps of the area - Locate
facilities (local library, local and state historical
societies, university libraries, state library, and
state archives) that have historical maps of
the area of interest. Search online for digital
versions of old maps. Panoramic or bird's eye
view maps, generally dating from the mid
1800s to 1920s, are useful to get a feeling of
development and topography of the town or
city depicted. To assess changes in coastlines
and wetland area, compare those features on
older maps to current maps. This can be done
by using a geographic information system
(GIS). Some useful web sites are: NOAA Office
of Coast Survey Historical Maps and Charts
(http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/csdl/
ctp/abstract.htm); Library of Congress Map
Collection - panoramic maps, Sanborn Fire
Insurance Maps, and many others (http://
memory.loc.gov/ammem/gmdhtml/gmdhome.
html); and Historic Maps of New England
(http://docs.unh.edu/nhtopos/nhtopos.htm).
Photographs - Look at old photographs of the
area to see what the area looked like in the early
1900s. Historical societies are usually good
sources of old photographs. Some publishing
companies (e.g. Arcadia Publishing) have
published books on local or regional history
with many old photographs. Some state
geographic information systems (e.g. Rhode
Island GIS) have historical aerial photographs.
Research former industries - Local boards
of trade reports and town or city directories
list industries and businesses. The Sanborn
Fire Insurance Maps show locations of former
industries and may indicate the industrial
processes or types of materials stored in the
buildings (see the Library of Congress Map
Collection listed above for Sanborn Maps).
History books written in the late 1800s about
specific local areas usually have sections on
the early businesses and manufacturers.
Research city and state health reports - Check
state libraries or search online for state or
city Department of Health reports to learn of
"nuisances" (odor problems from sewage or
other sources) or outbreaks of diseases that
may be related to environmental conditions.
For example, an outbreak of typhoid in New
Bedford, MA in 1900 to 1903 was caused by
consumption of contaminated shellfish.
Research city, state, and government
engineering reports - Search online or check
state libraries for old engineering reports and
check city halls for Board of Public Works
and Department of Engineering reports to
learn about possible environmental effects.
Census Reports - The federal government has
conducted a census every 10 years since 1790. The
census is divided into "schedules" with different
kinds of information: the population schedule
has data about households; the agricultural
schedule has data about crops and land use;
and the manufacturing schedule has data about
raw materials, labor, and factory production.
The later censuses, after 1850, tend to have
more data. States may also have conducted
censuses in other years. Census reports can be
Appendix A 57
-------
found in state archives or state libraries, and
often at university or large public libraries.
Newspapers - Old newspaper articles are a
good way to see what issues were important to
residents. Check local newspapers to see if they
maintain a library of past articles. Newspaper
articles can often be found on microfilm at
local libraries. Google News Archives has
listings of some old newspaper articles.
Find scientific data - Conduct a literature search
for historical scientific information. If sediment
cores have been taken in the area, the report may
include information about past contaminants
and vegetation (from pollen analysis). The
reference listed below has a chapter on where
to find historical written records, including
those containing ecological information.
Make a time line - Make a time line with
population and significant local, regional, and
national events. Add time series data such as
number of industries, fish and shellfish landings,
contamination data, and any environmental
data that shows changes over time. A time line
will help put local events in perspective and
give an understanding of why development
occurred as it did. It will also help to identify
time periods associated with development
and the resulting environmental effects.
Each area has its own unique history - Use
that as a guide to identify the environmental
effects associated with development of the area.
Reference - A useful book on where to
find information is "The Historical Ecology
Handbook: A Restorationist's Guide to Reference
Ecosystems" edited by Dave Egan and Evelyn A.
Howell, 2001, Island Press. There are chapters
on where to find written records, maps and
photographs, and land survey reports, as
well as chapters on tools used to reconstruct
historic ecosystems, and four case studies.
58 Imprint of the Past
-------
AppGndJX B: Contaminants in the Environment
There are two issues to consider about
environmental contaminants: fate —what
happens to the contaminant when released to the
environment; and effect—what kind of damage
is done. Some contaminants are short-lived and
affect only the immediate area for a short time,
while others persist in the environment for
decades. Chemical contaminants can remain at
the area of release or can be transported to other
locations. For example, some chemicals adsorb
to soil particles and persist there for decades;
while other chemicals leach into the ground
water or adjacent streams, rivers, and lakes, and
are transported away from the site of disposal.
Soil type also affects the fate of chemicals.
For example, sand is highly permeable, so
water can pass through it readily and carry
contaminants into the ground water. Clays are
less permeable (liquids filter through slowly),
so surface runoff carries the contaminants into
nearby water bodies. Many chemicals adsorb
to the organic fraction of soils. Chemicals
dumped into water bodies may be adsorbed by
the bottom sediments, and persist for decades.
Chemical contaminants emitted into the air
can be carried miles by prevailing winds.
The effect of any chemical contaminant depends
on its toxicity and the quantity released. At
high concentrations, contaminants dumped
into water bodies can cause acute toxicity
(death) to aquatic organisms, whereas, at
lower concentrations they can cause chronic
effects, such as decreased growth rate, reduced
number of offspring, nervous system disorders,
or accumulate in the tissues of the exposed
organisms. Edible species can accumulate high
enough concentrations of certain chemicals
that they pose a threat to human health. For
example, large fish at the top of the food chain
accumulate mercury, and consumption of these
fish should be limited, especially by children,
pregnant women, and people with certain
health issues. Since some species of plants
and animals are more sensitive than others,
pollutants can cause changes in the species
composition by affecting the more sensitive
species, while the more tolerant ones survive.
The fate and effect of groups of contaminants
can be described in general terms; the particular
effect of a contaminant depends on the individual
chemical or mix of chemicals, the amount
released, and the physical characteristics of the
disposal site. The general characteristics of some
groups of chemicals are listed below. Some, but
not all, of the individual chemicals within these
categories are regulated (i.e., the amount that can
be released into the environment is limited).
Emerging Contaminants (or contaminants
of emerging concern) are new chemicals or
chemicals that have been used for decades,
but only recently have been found to be wide-
spread, in small amounts, in ground water and
water bodies. New analytical techniques have
enabled scientists to measure extremely small
amounts of these chemicals in the environment.
Emerging contaminants are often present in
pharmaceutical or personal care products,
such as detergents, fragrances, prescription
and nonprescription drugs, veterinary drugs,
disinfectants, cosmetics, lotions, and insect
repellents. Sources of these chemicals are run-
off from agricultural land, wastewater from
sewage treatment facilities, and discharge from
individual septic systems. These chemicals are
not environmentally regulated, and sewage
treatment facilities are not designed to remove
them. The risks of emerging contaminants to
public health and the environment are uncertain
because the concentrations are low, but they
are often designed to be biologically active.
Two classes of these chemicals are especially
troubling: endocrine disrupters and antibiotics.
Endocrine disrupters mimic hormones. In living
organisms, only small amounts of hormones
are needed to control metabolic activity.
Sexual abnormalities have been found in fish
in streams with endocrine disrupters. With
the addition of antibiotics to the environment,
there is a risk of developing antibiotic resistant
strains of bacteria, as well as inadvertently
changing natural communities of bacteria,
which could result in unknown consequences.
Appendix B 59
-------
Metals can be toxic and can be accumulated by
organisms. Metals absorb to sediments, persist
in the environment, and have been widely
used in many industrial processes. Cadmium,
lead, mercury, and arsenic are some of the
more commonly known metals that cause
health problems. Children are particularly
susceptible to metal toxicity because of the
routes of exposure (e.g. putting things in their
mouths, crawling around on the floor), their
rapidly developing bodies, and small size.
Petroleum hydrocarbons are comprised of
hundreds of organic compounds derived from
petroleum. Toxicity and persistence depend
on the particular fraction of petroleum. Some
petroleum fractions are volatile (evaporate easily),
and although these compounds are toxic, they
usually are not harmful to organisms because
they do not persist in the environment. Whereas,
other fractions are not very reactive, persist in the
environment, and are toxic. Oils and grease are
general terms for some petroleum hydrocarbons.
Pesticides are chemicals that prevent, destroy,
or repel any pest. The term pesticide refers to
insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, also plant
regulators, defoliants, or desiccants, and any
other chemical used to control pests. Pesticides
are used commercially on farms and nurseries,
and by exterminators and lawn care companies,
but are also available for household use. These
chemicals are deliberately designed to be toxic
and affect both target and non-target species.
Phenols are a particular group of organic
chemicals that vary in toxicity and tend to
be less persistent in the environment.
Solvent is a term that indicates a group of
chemicals distinguished by their industrial
use, not chemical structure. They are usually
organic chemicals. Solvents vary in toxicity
and persistence in the environment.
Acids can cause acute effects in the
immediate vicinity of disposal, however,
acids are quickly buffered and generally
do not persist in the environment.
Cyanides are highly toxic and persistent in the
environment. They were used by a number of
industries in the 1800s but are now regulated.
Caustic cleaning agents are highly toxic. They
can cause acute effects in the immediate disposal
area, but do not persist in the environment.
Biological waste can cause acute, short-term
effects when disposed in water. Biological waste
contains organic matter, which consumes
dissolved oxygen (DO) when it decomposes. The
amount of DO in waters can be lowered so much
that resident plants and animals cannot survive.
Nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, are natural
chemicals. They stimulate plant growth and
are necessary for healthy ecosystems. However,
when human activities increase nutrients to
excessive levels, a series of negative ecological
effects can result. Too much nitrogen in marine
waters or phosphorus in fresh water causes
eutrophication, the excessive growth of algae.
Eutrophication causes low dissolved oxygen
in bottom waters as the algae die, sink to the
bottom, and use up the oxygen in the process
of decaying. Low dissolved oxygen levels can
affect aquatic organisms and cause fish kills.
60 Imprint of the Past
-------
-------
U ited States
Environmental Protec ion
Agency
PRESORTED STANDA
POSTAGE & FEES PAI
EPA
PERMIT NO. G-35
Office of Research and Development
National Health and Environmental
Effects Research Laboratory
Atlantic Ecology Division
Narragansett, Rl 02882
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable-based ink on paper that
contains a minimum of 50% post-consumer fiber
and is processed chlorine free.
------- |