EPA 600/R 12/050 | September 2012 

www.epa.gov/ord 

- 

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. Th is
 

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 eff ects 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 shellfi sh 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 aff ected 

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 

ii 
iii

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 Eff ects
 

Appendix B. ........................................................................................................................... 59


 Contaminants in the Environment 

iii 
 

 

 

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 of fish 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 
v

 

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 of fish 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
 

v 
 

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 

Break Water, 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 
vii

 

 

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 infl uences 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—fi sh, shellfi sh, mammals, 

plants, trees, clay deposits, seagrass, and fresh water. Th ey 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 eff ects 

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. Th ere 

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 shellfi shing. 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 fi sh. 

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. Th e 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. 

“Nat re pr ides t od, w r and air we need to su “Nature provides the food, water and air we need to survive,

but i ish r spi ug ac s we c but it also nourishes our spirits through the places we call

home and t ands ape rs and wi e t at i spire us e and the landscapes, waters and wildlife that inspire us.”

Ma k R. T rc Mark R. Tercek

viii 
 

 

 

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. Th e 

waters of the bay teemed with abundant fi sh 

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 aff ect 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. Aft er 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 eff ort 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 oft en 

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 aff ect 

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]. Th e 

emphasis of this research is to provide solutions 

that are sustainable, and responsive to the 

needs of multiple stakeholder groups. Th is 

requires scientists and managers to understand 

ecological conditions in the aff ected area. 

Because environmental problems are oft en 

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 1 
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 diff erent as 

little as fi fty 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 

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. Th e rate 

of sea-level rise declined between 3000 and 300 

years BP and Greenwich Bay stabilized as a lowenergy depositional environment [11, 13]. Th e 

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 postglacial 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 Culp’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 fi sherman. Th ree 

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 3 
 

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 fi nfish 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 fi nfish [7]. Th e 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 shellfi shing 

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 fi ft y 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 presentday 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 
5

Pre-Colonial Period – before 1650
 

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 shellfi sh 

(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 aft er 

the coast stabilized and marshes and mud fl ats 

developed, which would have been aft er 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. Th e 

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 5 
European contact (1000 to 400 BP); Bernstein 

suggested that the smaller size shellfi sh 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 fi sh 

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, fi ft een 

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 fi rst 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 

Fish 

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―Martes americana 

River otter―Lutra canadensis 

Striped skunk―Mephitis mephitis nigra 

Canid―Canis sp. 

Red fox―Vulpes vulpes fulva 

Gray fox―Urocyon cinereoargentus 

6 Imprint of the Past 
7

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. Th is 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 fi rst European 

known to have visited Narragansett Bay. 

In 1524, he spent fi fteen 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 fi lberts, 

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” (Th omas 

Morton, 1632) that has been written about 

and often cited by other authors. Surface fi res, 

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 fi re-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. Th ese 

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 7 
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 shellfi sh 

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 
9

Colonial Period – c. 1650 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 fi rst 

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]. Th e 

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 watershed 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. Th ey 

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. Th e 

Colonial 9 
 

 

 

 

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 fi sh and 

shellfish, so did the colonists. Th e 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 fi shing 

in their rivers, forbidding the setting of weirs, 

dams or nets” that would impede the migration 

of fish 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 lb) 

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 infl uence 

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 specifi c 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 fi rst 

dam in the watershed. These early dams were 

usually low and not permanent, thus the eff ect 

on streams and fish would have been transient. 

10 Imprint of the Past 
 

11

Maritime Period – c. 1730 to c. 1820
 

Although 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 fi nished 

anchors. In the late 1800s, a local historian 

wrote that “Apponaug Cove in early times, was 

several feet deeper than at present, sloops of 

fi fteen tons burden found no diffi culty 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. Th e 

researchers reported that this layer was deposited 

in the early to mid 1800s. Th e 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. Th e 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]. 

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 
13

The American Revolution (1775–1783) interrupted maritime trade, but merchants took advantage 

of the opportunity by providing goods needed 

during the war. Since British ships were patrolling 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 aft er 

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 fi sheries 

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, fi ve-fi ngers, fi ddler 

crabs, large crabs, horse feet, road fi sh, grunters, 

sharks, dogfish, bass, menhaden, squiteague, 

tautog, scup, skipjacks, fl atfi sh, fl ounders, 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 specifi c 

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 
“The excellence and safety of the harbor was a strong inducement 

for men of energy and business habits to settle on its shores.”

 D. H. Greene 

14 Imprint of the Past 
 

 

15

Industrial Period – c. 1800 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. Th e 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 fi nance the 

emerging textile industry [46]. 

Industries in the 

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 fi nishing 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 fi rst 

company in the U.S. to produce wash and wear 

no-iron fabric [15]. Despite these successes, 

Watershed 

In Warwick a number of 

textile mills were built in 

the 1790s and early 1800s. 

Apponaug Company, 1917. The mill at Apponaug operated under various names: 

Manchester Manufacturing Company, 1809 to 1850s; Oriental Print Works, 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 fi re 

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 fi nishing 

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 Location Start End Date Comments References 

Textiles 

Dawson Mill Main & Division St. 1790 Early 1800s First cotton print works in the [52] 

country 

East Greenwich King & Water St. 1828 1920s First steam powered cotton [46] 

Manufacturing Co. 1 mill in RI 

Pollard Mill 2 Division & Duane St. 1836 1941 Woolen mill, dye house [46] [55] 

Phoenix Woolen Co. King & Duke St. 1870 Early 1890s Dye house, carding and spinning [62] [56] [63] 

Yarn Mill 3 

Union Mill Greene, Liberty, 1836 1894 Made broad cloth, printed cloth [55] 

(later Orion Mill) Union, & Main St. 

Providence Drysalters 4 Greene, Liberty, 1894 1939 Made paper coatings, textile [55] 

Union, & Main St. chemicals, soap 

Hercules Powder Greene, Liberty, 1939 1946 Division of E.I. DuPont - made [55] 

Union, & Main St. dyes used in WWII uniforms 

Farrington Mill 5 Foot of Division St. 1905 c. 1940 Made dextrin for calico printing, [55] 

cloth finishes, adhesives for shoes 

Green Dale Bleachery 6 Post Rd & Cedar Ave 1840 1960 Textile fi nishing plant [55] 

Metalworking 

Asa Arnold Machine 

Shop 

Marlborough & 

Division St. 

1845 c. 1870 Made machinery for textile mills, 

and for making fi shing nets 

[49] [55] 

Ferricup Metal Corp. Foot of Division St. 1889 1905 Metalworking and plating [55] 

Boston Wire Stitcher 7 Division & Duane St. 1904 1946 Made wire staples [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 
 

17

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 eff ort 

[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. Th e 

founder Edson Gallaudet, a contemporary of 

the Wright Brothers, was experimenting in 

aerodynamics in the late 1890s. Th e 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 seaplanes 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 Buff alo [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 

to a division of the town; the western section 

split off to form West Warwick. Warwick’s 

population dropped in the 1920 census aft er 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). 

Figure 4. Population of the three towns surrounding Greenwich Bay 

from 1800 to 2000. 

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 
19

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. Th e 

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 
 

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 workingclass 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 Aerial photo of Oakland Beach, c. 1920. The Warwick Railroad carried 

passengers across the trestles at the mouth of Warwick Cove (top right) colony to a year-round community. 

to Oakland Beach and then across the mouth of Brush Neck Cove This pattern of expansion in the late (middle left) to Buttonwoods. Passenger service on the trolley ended in 1800s and early 1900s was the precursor 1935, and the 1938 hurricane destroyed the trestles. The 1938 hurricane of the urbanization that boomed also destroyed the amusement park and many shorefront buildings. 

(Warwick Historical Society) 

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. Th e 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]. Th e 

after the end of World War II [15]. 

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. Th ese 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 Th e 

Oaks from his cousin, Mrs. Russell. In 1927, 

Goddard’s son and daughter donated Th e 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 treelined 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 ninehole golf course, picnic areas, beach, and riding 

trails, is a popular attraction in the watershed. 

20 Imprint of the Past 
21

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. Overfl ows 

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. Th e 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. Th e 

original plant provided primary treatment of 

sewage—Imhoff tanks for the settlement of 

solids and anaerobic digestion of sludge [73]. 

Th e outflow from the plant was into Greenwich 

Cove. The WWTF was upgraded in 1956 to a 

secondary treatment facility with trickling fi lters 

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 benefi ts, 

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. Th e 

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 
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 aff ected by 

chemical pollution, bacterial pollution, and in 

Apponaug Cove, hypoxia (low oxygen levels). 

Th e first study of pollution in Greenwich Bay, 

conducted in 1861 by the Rhode Island Shellfi sh 

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. Th e 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 
 

23

work (Greenwich) Cove for extra money, but 

they never knew what color the shellfi sh 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. Th e 

Industrial Period was a time of signifi cant 

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 fl ow. 

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 refl ected 

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, 

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 

Chromium 

g/g 

Copper

g/g 

Upper Narragansett Bay

 Seekonk River 850 2558 812

 Fox Point 490 1625 517 

Greenwich Bay 

Apponaug Cove 701 223 218

 Greenwich Bay 134 142 130 

Mid-Narragansett Bay

 Ohio Ledge 66 85 68

 Calf Pasture Point 76 95 

Lead 

g/g 

51 

24 Imprint of the Past 
 

 

25

than concentrations measured in the upper 

Narragansett Bay cores (Seekonk River, Fox 

Point), which were taken near Providence, a 

highly industrialized area (Table 3). Th is is 

consistent with a number of scientifi c 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 profi les 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). Th is 

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 diff erent 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. Th e 

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 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 shellfi shing 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 shellfi sh beds 

in Apponaug Cove closed to shellfi shing 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 of fi sh 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 fi rst 

U.S. fish commissioner and was authorized to 

conduct an inquiry into the state of fi sheries 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 of fish traps and pounds. Fish 

traps were set along the shore in early spring and 

caught whole schools of fish (e.g. alewives, tautog, 

mackerel, menhaden, scup, sea bass, bluefi sh, 

and squiteague) as they moved along the coast 

and into Narragansett Bay and Buzzards Bay, 

Massachusetts, to spawn. Th e hook-and-line 

fishermen blamed the trap fishermen for the 

26 Imprint of the Past 
27

Year 

Greenwich 

Bay 

Total for 

Rhode Island 

1881 nd 20 

1882 nd 25 

1898 nd 119 

1899 2 121 

1902 6 161 

1903 8 195 

1904 5 220 

1905 8 240 

1906 11 249 

1907 12 271 

1908 13 271 

1909 11 277 

1910 16 283 

1911 15 277 

1912 nd 261 

1922 nd 127 

Table 4. Number of fish 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 fi sh 

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 fi sh 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). Th e 

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 fi sheries 

of Greenwich Bay in 1880 [40]. 

They reported that Apponaug and 

East Greenwich had active fi shing 

fleets (Table 5). Fish—bluefi sh, 

squiteague, tautog, fl ounders and 

scup—were caught by hand-lines, seines, Figure 8. Map of fish traps in Narragansett Bay in 1910. Map redrawn from 

and gill-nets. Fyke nets were set along the 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). Th e 

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 fi shery, 

by 1865 few oysters were landed by fi sherman 

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 

28 Imprint of the Past 

Table 5. Fishing resources and catch in Apponaug 

and East Greenwich in 1880 (nd = no data) [40, p. 306]. 

Apponaug 

East 

Greenwich 

Resources

 Sail boats

 Small boats 

Scallop/clam dredges 

Seines 

Gill nets 

Fyke-nets 

9

30

36

4

nd

nd

 16

 12

 75

 4

 11

 100 

Catch

 Scallops 

Clams (bushels) 

Fresh fi sh (pounds) 

3300 (gallons) 

6000 

37,500 

6000 (bushels) 

4000

125,000 

Table 6. Shellfishing products (number of bushels) 

reported for 18651

 [40, p. 286]. 

Warwick 

East 

Greenwich 

Total for 

State 

Clams 9,127 1,415 31,697 

Quahogs 2,953 339 9,241 

Scallops 1,627 6,635 9,653 

Oysters 242 13 71,894 

1

 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]. 

Figure 9. Commercial quahog harvest from Narragansett Bay. 

Figure redrawn from DeAlteris et al. [98]. 
 

29

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: nutrientrich 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 “fi shing purposes 

and wharfing” [102]. Starting in the first half of 

the 1800s, a haphazard cluster of small houses, 

shanties, and boathouses were built by fi shermen. 

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) 

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 fi sh, 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. Th e 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, oldtime 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]. 

Th e effect of dams on native fi sh 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 of fish 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 of fi sh, aft er 

menhaden and scup [111]. However, by 1960 there 

were no significant landings of anadromous fi sh 

in Narragansett Bay [111]. In 1993, a fi sh 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]. Th e 

30 Imprint of the Past 
31

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. Th e most 

significant natural hazards for Greenwich Bay 

are hurricanes and nor’easters [7]. Th e 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 fl ooded 

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. Th e 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. Th e 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 fl ooded 

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, fl ooding 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 fl ash 

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]. 

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. Th e 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 

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) 

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 fi sh. 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 fi shery in 

Narragansett Bay collapsed by the late 1800s. 

Scallops were plentiful in Greenwich Bay in the 

the late 1800s, but disappeared in the fi rst half 

of the 1900s with the disappearance of eelgrass. 

Industrialization had negative effects on the 

ecology of Greenwich Bay. 

32 Imprint of the Past 
 

33

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 diffi cult 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 diff erent 

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 

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 infl uence 

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 buff ers 

protect the shore from storm erosion and 

provide habitat for wildlife. In addition, coastal 

wetlands protect the shore from fl ooding, provide 

habitat for fish, and provide opportunities for 

recreation—fi shing, shellfishing, and birdwatching. 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 identifi ed 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 aff ect shoreline 

habitat. Some species of fish 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 
 

35

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 aff ected 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 fi ve 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 aff ects shellfi sheries 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 eff ects 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. 

Th is 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 

Warwick 

City Park 

Goddard 

Park 

Oakland 

Beach 

1998 27 14 31 

1999 0 7 0 

2000 0 16 10 

2001 19 28 12 

2002 15 7 12 

2003 23 21 66 

2004 5 0 11 

2005 7 2 7 

2006 17 10 15 

2007 3 1 7 

2008 15 1 15 

2009 12 10 17 

2010 2 5 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 
 

 

37

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 eff ects 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]. Aft er 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 stratifi cation of 

the water column, with less dense fresh water 

floating over denser salt water. Th ese 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 aff ect 

aquatic organisms and can result in foul odors 

Suburbanization 37 
 

 

as sediments and water turn sulfi dic. Dissolved 

oxygen concentrations of less than 4.8 mg/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 mg/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 infl uence 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]. Th e 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 
39

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. Th e fi ve 

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 July 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. Th e 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 fi sheries 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 fi shery 

was managed by reducing the daily catch 

limit and limiting commercial fi shing 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 fi sh 

in Greenwich Bay. The most abundant species 

were bait fish, but several other species of interest 

to recreational fishermen (alewife, bluefi sh, 

winter flounder, striped bass, and tautog) were 

considered common. A study that used fi sh 

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 of fish in Narragansett Bay 

changed over this time [111]. Abundance of 

northern species, such as winter fl ounder and 

northern sea robin, decreased. Abundance of 

all bottom fish (for example, tautog, fl ounders, 

skate, sea robins) decreased, while abundance 

of some pelagic fish, such as bluefish and butter 

fish (but not scup), increased. As the bottom fi sh 

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. Th e 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 

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 
41

sediments were above the concentration at 

which occasional adverse biological eff ects 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 buff ers 

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. Th e 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]. Th e fi sh 

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. Th e 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 fl at 

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 aff ect shellfi sh, fi sh 

(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 fi sh kills. 

Eelgrass, an important habitat for scallops and 

other biota, declined and is no longer found in 

the bay. Scallops are gone. Overfi shing 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 
43

 

Summary
 

The presence of humans has clearly had 

ecological effects on Greenwich Bay and its 

watershed, especially in the last 150 years. Th e 

major events and known ecological eff ects 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— 

fi sh, shellfish, mammals, plants, trees, clay 

deposits, and fresh water. Th ey modifi ed 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. Th ey 

utilized the natural resources of the bay and 

watershed; they fished, collected shellfi sh, 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, fi sh, shellfish 

● Fur trade, loss of beaver 

Colonial Period – c. 1650 to c. 1750 

Minimal impact 

Minimal impact 

Might have increased sedimentation in coves 

● Cleared land, farmed 

Maritime Period – c. 1730 to c. 1820 

Probably increased sedimentation 

● Cleared more land 

● Built wharfs 

Industrial Period – c. 1800 to c. 1945 

Evidence of sedimentation in Apponaug Cove 

Some changes to shoreline, loss of habitat 

● Population increased, more sewage Bacterial contamination; shellfish bed closures 

● Industries Chemical contamination of water and sediments 

● Built dams Obstructed anadromous fish runs in streams 

● Building of Stonington Railroad Contributed to sedimentation 

● Overfishing in Narragansett Bay 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; fi sh kills 

● Development of shoreline areas Loss of natural shallow water habitats and vegetated buffers 

Summary 43 
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 fi rewood and 

lumber. Fresh water from springs and wells 

supplied them with drinking water. Th e 

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. Th ere 

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 overfl ow. Th e 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 
45

passage of anadromous fi sh. Overfi shing 

depleted the fish stocks in Narragansett Bay 

and probably aff ected 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 eff ect 

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, identifi ed 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. Th is 

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 fi lled 

with eelgrass and had a productive scallop 

fi shery. 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 fl ooding), 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. Th is 

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 

 

 

 

47

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 communitybased environmental protection. Marine 

Pollution Bulletin 42(5):339-349. 

4.	 Pearce, J. 1999. Historic reconstruction 

of ecological eff ects. 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. CostaPierce, 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. Th e History 

of East Greenwich, Rhode Island 1677­

1960: with Related Genealogy. East 

Greenwich Free Library Association: 

East Greenwich, RI. 300 pp. 

28. 	 Wroth, L.C. 1970. The Voyages of Giovanni 

da Verrazzano 1524 - 1528. New Haven: 

Yale University Press (published for Th e 

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: Th e 

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 
 

49

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. Th e 

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 Offi ce: 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 fi rst 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. Th e 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, Offi ce of 

Archeology and Historic Preservation, 

Historic American Engineering 

Record: Washington, D.C. 296 pp. 

47. 	 Pratt, S.D. and G.L. Seavey. 1981. Th e 

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 Th at There may be a 

Permanent and Enduring Record of the 

Two Hundred and Fift ieth 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: Th e 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 eff ect 

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.centennialoffl ight.gov/ 

essay/Aerospace/earlyU.S/Aero1.htm. 

61. 	 Scott, J. 2000. Edson Gallaudet. [last 

updated May 30, 2011] [cited 2010 

September 23]; Available from: 

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/ 

question/history/q0001.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 Offi ce: 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 Offi ce: Washington, D.C. 

66. 	 Havan-Orumieh, M. 1990. Th e Eff ect 

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. Th e 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 
51

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, Dedford, 

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 Retrospective Miniassessment. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency: Washington, D.C. 

76. 	 Hawes, E. 1993. Historic Sources of Pollution 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 Purifi cation 

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 L.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. 

94 pp. 

100. Boyd, J.R. 1990. Th e Narragansett 

Bay shellfish industry: a historical 

perspective and an overview of 

problems of the 1990s. In First Rhode 

Island Shellfi sheries 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. Th e impact 

52 Imprint of the Past 
 

 

 

53

of man on seagrass systems.
 

American Scientist 63:278-296.
 

104. Short, F.T. and C.A. Short. 1984. Th e 

seagrass fi lter: 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, J. Collie, 

T. Lynch, and K. Reposa. 2003. A century 

of fishing and fi sh fl uctuations in 

Narragansett Bay. Reviews in Fisheries 

Science 11(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 buff er restoration 

sites in the Greenwich Bay and Buckeye 

Brook watersheds, Rhode Island. 

RI Department of Environmental 

Management, Offi ce 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 Shellfi sh Grounds, 

References 53 
May 2010. Available from: www.dem. 

ri.gov/maps/mapfi le/shellfi sh.pdf. 

121. 	Rhode Island Department of 

Environmental Management. 2011. 

Notice of Polluted Shellfi shing 

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/pdfl ib/RI%20Beach%20 

Program%202007%20Season%20Report. 

pdf, http://fi les.gegov.com/Filesystem/51/ 

pdfl ib/2008%20Beach%20Program%20 

Season%20Report.pdf, http://fi les.gegov. 

com/Filesystem/51/pdfl ib/2009%20 

Season%20Report%5B1%5D.pdf, 

http://fi les.gegov.com/Filesystem/51/ 

pdfl ib/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. CostaPierce, 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. CostaPierce, 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. CostaPierce, 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 
 

55

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, 

4 Oct 2011. 

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, Offi ce of Research 

and Development, National Health 

and Environmental Eff ects Research 

Laboratory, Atlantic Ecology Division, EPA822-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 Shellfi sheries 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 Aff airs, 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. Th e 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 

57

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 Offi ce 

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. Th e 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 shellfi sh. 

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 eff ects. 

Census Reports – The federal government has 

conducted a census every 10 years since 1790. Th e 

census is divided into “schedules” with diff erent 

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 microfi lm at 

local libraries. Google News Archives has 

listings of some old newspaper articles. 

Find scientifi c 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). Th e 

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 shellfi sh 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 eff ects. 

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 
59

Appendix 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. 

Th e 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 widespread, 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 runoff 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 fi sh 

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 fl oor), 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. Th ese 

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. Th ey 

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. Th e 

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 fi sh kills. 

60 Imprint of the Past 

PRESORTED STANDARD
 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID
 

EPA
 

PERMIT NO. G-35
 

Office of Research and Development 

National Health and Environmental

 Effects Research Laboratory 

Atlantic Ecology Division 

Narragansett, RI 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.