Melville condition survey

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

MELVILLE CONDITION SURVEY

prepared for

Rhode Island Port Authority and
-"*Economic Development Corporation
2:

77771;@'

MAY9 1982

C
CE MAGUIRE9 INC.
Architects - Engineers Planners
) 31 Canal Street, Providence Rhode Isl and 02903
THE MAGUIRE - -----
GROUP

CE MAGUIRE9 INC.
Architects - Engineers - Planners
31 Canal Street, Providence'. Rhode Island 02903

THE MAGUIRE
GROUP Tel. 401/272-6000
Telex: 92-7533 Cable: CEMI

July 1, 1982

Mr. Edward J. Spinard
Rhode Island Port Authority and
Economic Development Corporation
Seven Jackson Walkway US DePartMent Of COMIrnerce
Providence, Rhode Island 02903 1q0AA Coastal Services Center Library
RE: Melville Condition Survey - 2W4 South Hobson Avenue
CEM No. 4001 Ch"lestOn, SC 29405-2413

Dear Ted:

We are pleased to submit this report of our findings relative to the
existing conditions of the waterfront facilities and utilities at Mel-
ville, Rhode Island. The report is submitted in accordance with our
contract dated 1 December 1981 for the work. As you are aware, the
weather did not cooperate, and we had a difficult time scheduling the
diving and ultrasonic work. Credit, therefore, must go to Maguire's PE'
("cold weather")/dive team for delivery of this report within the time
limit set forth in the contract. The following summarizes our findings:

In general, we found the major waterfront structures to be in very good
structural condition in view of their age. The piers, of course, showed
the effects of "wear and tear" from use and weathering, however, we
consider this damage to be minor. With the exception of a few damaged
piles on the FBM pier, major rehabilitation does not appear necessary
prior to reutilization.

The bulkhead at the former Fuel and Net Depot did not fare as well. We
found large holes in the steel sheetpiles in the splash zone and our
ultrasonic testing exhibited the common characteristics of steel piles
in advanced stages of corrosion. It is only a matter of time (perhaps a
few years or so) before the sheetpile sufficiently weakens in the splash
zone so that major distortion occurs. The will be accelerated by the
increased activity on the waterfront resulting from reuse.

Utilities at the site were found.to be in generally poor condition. The
water system is reported to be very old and increased usage will most
probably result in frequent breaks and leaks. The system of storm
sewers is inadequate for all but small storms. This is of minimum
consequence, however, since future development can utilize surface
channels for runoff. Site sanitary sewage is dependent on the existing
Navy force main extending along the Defense Access Highway (Burma Road).
We understand that you have reached a tentative agreement with the Navy
regarding capacities.

Alexandria. LA . Boston, MA - Burlington. VT - Charlotte. NC - Falls Church, VA - Florence. SC - Honolulu. HI - Manchester. NH - New Britain. CT - Norfolk. VA
Pittsburgh, PA - Providence. Rt - Richmond. VA - Sparlanburg, SC - wailhaM. MA - Agana. Guam - Dublin. Ireland . Lagos. Nigeria - Santurce. PR

Mr. Edward J. Spinard
Page 2
July 1, 1982

We trust that you will find this report of great benefit for your work.
As usual, we enjoyed an excellent working relationship with you and your
staff. We repeat our commitment to meet at your request with any poten-
tial developers to discuss the salient points of our work.

Thank you for being a most professional client.

Very truly yours,

CE MAGUIRE, INC.
VAO@
Victor V. Calabretta, P.E.
Assistant Vice President
Manager, Civil & Marine Division

VVC:tmt

MELVILLE CONDITION SURVEY

Page

INTRODUCTION

Authority
Scope 1
Site Description 2

WATERFRONT FACILITIES
WATERFRONT CONDITION SURVEY

Condition 4
Findings 8
Analysis of Water Front Structures 16
Remedial Measures 19

UTILITIES

Water Distribution System 30
Findings 32
Conclusions 34
Remedial Measures 35
Storm Drainage 36
Findings 39
Conclusions 41
Remedial Measures 42
Sewage System 42
Findings 42
Conclusions 46

APPENDIX

A. Development Scenarios

B. Condition Survey Field Notes

INTRODUCTION

Authority

This study has , been accomplished by CE Maguire, Inc. under

contract with the Rhode Island Port Authority and Economic Develop-

ment Corporation. The preparation of this report was financed in

part by funds from the Office of Coastal Zone Management, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Deparment. of Com-

merce, administered by the Energy Office, EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,

GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, STATE OF RHODE ISLAND.

Scope

The purpose of this study is to provide the Rhode Island Port

Authority and Economic Development Corp with documentation which

summarizes the present condition of the Melville Waterfront Facilities.

The findings of this survey will be used in conjunction with the

purchase and sale of the Melville facilities from the U.S. Government

to the State of Rhode Island and to provide current data to potential

development groups. The Melville site was classified by the U.S.

GovernmL-nt surplus in 1974 and has had minimum occupancy by the

military since that time. As part of this study the followind was

undertaken:

Visual inspection survey of all the waterfront facilities both

above and below the water by CE Maguire engineering/diver

staff .
1

Ultra Sonic measurement of the steel sheetpile bulkhead

Structural Analysis of the piers and bulkhead.

Analysis of existing sewage system.

Field Investigation and Analysis of the existing storm water

drainage sewer.

Analysis of the existing water distribution system.

Remedial Repair Analysis of all waterfront structures to

include required improvements to the facilities to accom-

mod.ate development scenarios.

Hydrographic Survey which includes compilation of existing

hydrographic information and new data submitted by CE

Maguire hydrographic group.

Site Description

The project site is shown on Figure No. 1 and consists of ap-

proximately 40 acres of waterfront properties located in Ports-

mouth, Rhode Island. The site is bordered by the east passage

of Narragensett Bay on the North and West, Penn Central Rail-

road right-of-way to the east, the Navy's remaining Defense Fuel

Supply Agency, to the North and the Navy to the south.

The land area is relatively flat with an average elevation of 11.5

ft. above mean low water. There are several abandoned

buildings and a network of paved and unpaved roadways.

The waterfront facilities consist of an L shape concrete deck

timber pile pier (South Fueling Pier), 550- linear feet of steel

sheetpile with an attached 80 feet of timber pier, and a dog-leg

shaped pier and access trestle (FBM Replenishment Pier) which

was designed for servicing of submarine tenders.

PROJECT LIMITS

STIEEL SHEET PILE" MBER FIER
BULKHEAD'

AW
GRANITE: 4 TIMBER F1

FUEUWa PIEK GWTH F-te-114% FIER

-F5M APPRDAai TRBSTL@

PtER HGAD-0

N19-VLLE CONOMON SURVEY
C
CZ MAGUIM, INQ GENERAL PLAN
A;Cmtecf - Enqm"m - Pfammm
) 3 CanmsS4femorovtdefice.R"WeivandO2903 DATE FIGURE NO.
allow MAY, 198Z I I

WATERFRONT FACILITIES

WATERFRONT CONDITION SURVEY

General: The condition survey generally consisted of a vis ualinspec-

tion above and below the water surface of the following structures:

The FBM Pier and Access Trestle@

The South 'Fueling Pier to include the attached Granite &

Timber Pier

The Steel Sheetpile Bulkhead

To augment the field investigation, a data search was conducted of

available waterfront'construction and repair documents. Measurement

of the degree of metal corrosion was made by ultrasonic equipment.

Field diver personnel were mobilized and subaqueous work commenced

on March 22 and 23 1982. Above water investigations were conducted

on January 7 and March 6, 7 & 13 1982.

Data Search: A search was conducted at the Newport Naval Base

Pubi ic Works Office files for design and construction drawings of the

waterfront facilities at the Melville Fuel Depot and FBM Replenishment

Facility. Melville records are maintained at the Newport Navy Base.

In addition, Maguire archives were searched. Maguire was the

Engineer or record for many of the Navy construction projects at

Mel ville.

Methodology: To systematically evaluate the various waterfront

components, the facility was broken into three major components with

a system of baselines in order to coordinate field observations with

the text. Figure No. 1 delineates those components and baselines.

1. Visual Inspection: Inspection of all pier superstructures

and bulkheads was completed on January 7 by members of

the inspection team from CE Maguire, Inc. Inspection of

wharf fixtures, deck surfaces, bolla.rds and cleats were

accomplished from topside. The condition survey below

decks was completed as March 6, 7 and 13 using an eight ft

pram for access. Supporting piles, pile caps, stringers

cross bracing and the above water sections of the bulkhead

were surveyed on a bent by bent bases utilizing preprinted

forms, with one form assigned to each pile bent. The field

notes of this portion of the survey are included in Ap-

pendix B to this report. With the exception of one-half of

the north/south leg of the fueling pier all surveys were

conducted at or near low tides. The survey of the above

water portions of the steel bulkheads and pier super-

structure consisted of visual inspection and, where ap-

propriate, ultrasonic testing. Areas which were coated with

marine growth were scraped to the base material and

examined. Timber members were examined for breakage,

rot and biological attack. Particular. attention was paid to

the integrity of connections and fasteners. Concrete

components were inspected for stress cracks, exposed

reinforcing, spalling and staining.
5

2. Diver Inspection: The underwater inspect ion of the Melville

facilities was completed on March 24, by one of CE

Maguire's dive teams. Figure No. 2 indicates the routes

which divers followed during the survey. The team

consisted of an above water diving supervisor and a two

man below water team. The survey consisted of visual

Inspection of the type of construction materials used and

the physical condition of the structures. Ultrasonic testing

was accomplished at selected areas. Divers coordinated

their inspection with previously established baselines via

communication with the topside dive supervisor. Selected

concrete piles were scraped of marine growth and checked

for stress cracks, spalling, staining or exposed reinforcing.

3. Ultrasonic Testing: Locations for ultrasonic testing of the

steel sheetpile bulkhead were chosen by engineers from CE

Maguire, Inc., after analysis of the collected field data.

Figure No. 2 shows locations which were selected and tested

utilizing a Knautkramer-Branson Model USL 38 ultrasonic

portable flaw detector/thickness instrument. Tests were

accomplished on March 24 in conjunction with the under-

water divers survey.

Divers prepared the below water test locations using ham-

mers, scrapers and wire brushes. Above water personnel

monitored the dives using tag lines and a pre-established

set of signals and the above water thickness gauge monitor

0
0 9
+
+ 0
10 +

t it]

SOUTH FUEUNG PIER

F5M APrROAL-9 TRESTLE

LEGEND
rla@ DNEP:S SURVE'? INSPECTION ROUTE
n@ ULTRASONIC MEASUREMEWT LOCATIONS
(Z@ PHOTO LOCAT(ON5 WITH comewaND(t4ra NUmw-v, nA

F5M FACIUTY

ME-VILLE CONDMON SURVEY
0
CKMAGURMimm LOCATION PLAN
Artn"M 6 EngAgm a F%mnws
31 Ca" S"w. Pmx*rce. ftow istom o2M rATE URE NO.
GROW MAY, 19U -T*

and readout. All readings were recorded and have been

included in this report.

4. Hydrographic Surveys: As part of th.is project, CE

Maguire conducted hydrographic surveys of the inner basin

at the south fueling pier and the west berth of that pier.

These surveys were combined with previous hydrographic

surveys conducted by Maguire in 1980 and existing Navy

sounding records to develop an overall map of existing

water depths. The results of the hydrographic survey

analysis are presented on the drawing entitled "Melville

Condition Survey, Waterfront Existing Conditions" and

included as Drawing No. 1 of this report.

The soundings were performed on March 3, 1982 using a

Raytheon DE 19B continuous recording fathometer mounted

on Maguire's 16 foot survey boat. The soundings were

conducted on lines parallel to the piers utilizing premarked

ranges and stations on the piers. The fathometer was

calibrated at the beginning and end of the survey. Tide

adjustments were made based on reading of a tide board

mounted to the south fueling pier and tied into the project

benchmark by a closed level run.

FINDINGS

South Fueling Piers: In general the South Fueling Pier appeared be

be in good condition. Figure No. 3 indicates the typical construction

of the south fueling pier. The south fueling pier's superstructure is

constructed of a cast-in-place concrete deck supported on timber

piles. The timber piles are in rows (bents), each row spaced ap-

proximately ten feet apart. The piles are braced laterally by diagonal

timbers an d have a horizontal timber brace at low water. in addition,

a batter pile is incorporated in each bent. The batter piles alternate

from one side of the pier to the other at each bent. As can be seen

from Figure No. 3 the majority of the deck structure includes deck

fittings and the fuel distribution system.

Fittings (bollards and cleats) an the South Fueling Pier will require

some rehabilitation. The majority of the fittings (14 out of 25)

require concrete repairs and sealing to maintain their long term

structural integrity. Presently, the reinforced concrete pedestals

which support the fittings show signs of cracking and spalling. In

any event, it may be desirable to relocate the bollards at the edge of

the pier once the pipelines are removed.

According to Navy records, the most recent rehabilitation of the

south fueling pier was performed in 1955 when a timber deck was

removed and the existing concrete deck placed on the original piles

(Maguire design). Based on the condition survey, it is speculated

that since that time some fender system repairs have been performed,

however there are no Navy records indicating this.
8

EXIST FUEL PIPES
TIMBER FENDER BOLLARD
PILE (TYP 50TH LEAT
SIDES)
CONCRETE DECK
00

CHOCX
TIMBER BRACANGGr@...

\-nMW.R FOUNDATION PILES
*r-AIZI
0

MaNIIE CONUMN SU3\/EY
0
CE 11"QUIRE, W. -SOUTH: -.-FUELING _,P1FR
A;Cfl,tWs * Engineers 6 Planners TYPICAL SECTION
3 Canal Street. Prm.dence, Rhode Islam 02W3
OF - IDATE MAY 196Z IFIGURE NO. 3

The support piles showed some checking and splintering at the high

waterline, however, the spli ntering appears to be surficial. The piles

were probed. with a knife and were found to be sound beneath the

splintering. With the exception of a very few random piles noted in

the field notes of the survey, all structural piles appeared to be in

good condition. Above th e waterline the coal tar preservative treat-

ment was very substantial and is most probably still in service.

Approximately 25 percent of the timber bracing is damaged or miss-

ing. In most cases the timber has deteriorated over time especially in

the tide zone and is either split or rotted. (See photo 1) Remaini ng

bracing was probed with a knife and was found to be in sound

condition. This Indicates that a majority of the damage occurred at

the bolts either by rotting of the timber or corrosion of the'bolts.

In the tide zone, piles and timber are covered by marine growth. All

visible damage was noted, however, marine growth may have covered

additional damage. The underside of the concrete deck appeared in

excellent condition. There was very I-ittle cracking or spalling. The

timber pile fender system remains over a majority of the pier. Ap-

proximately 30% of the timber fender piles show some damage,

primarily rot at the top of the pile above the wale. in some areas

there were timber piles missing and it was noted that a small per-

centage 'of the fender piles were untreated. On the west face of the

north/south leg of the fueling pier, there were two areas where the

number of fender piles were doubled (i.e., an additional fender pile

between bents.) These fender piles appeared to be newer and

Ai""!%fW!"t

PHOTO 1 SPLINTERED TIMBER BRACING AT
THE SOUTH FUELING PIER

PHOTO 2 MARINE BORER
ATTACK OF TIMBER FENDER
PILE

indicative of a recent repair. Untreated fender piles showed marine

borer activity at low water; the treated piles did not. (See photo 2)

The timber support piles below water were also found to be in excel-

lent condition, with moderate to heavy marine growth on all piles.

Particular attention was paid to those areas which are normally sub-

ject to marine borer attack (i.e., the mudline and splash area). Piles

were coated with moderate to heavy coatings of marine growth and

had to be scraped for inspection. Piles were checked for damage and

borer attack. No signs of deterioration or attack were found. In

addition piles were found to still have a heavy coating of the original

creosote tar treatment. Bottom conditions were relatively flat with no
debris and heavy deposits'of marin e mus'sels and starfish.

Several fender piles revealed signs of marine borer attack at the

waterline and mudline. Piles showed as much as a 2 inch reduction in

cross sectional diameter. Note that borer attack was noted in fender

piles only and not in foundation piles. A probable explanation is that

the foundation piles were treated with either a different type of

preservative or higher concentration of the preservative.

Granite and Timber Pier: The granite block/timber pier, located at

the end of the South Fueling Pier requires - moderate rehabilitation.

(See photo 3) Figure No. 4 indicates the typical construction of the

Pier. The concrete cap which provides a portion of the deck area is

cracked and shows signs of movement. The timber pile supported,

timber deck portion of the pier is severely deteriorated and requires

F-P

bil

PHOTO 3 GRANITE PIER LOCATED AT THE NORTH END
OF THE SOUTH FUELING PIER. NOTE THE DETERIORATED
TIMBER SECTION AND THE STEEL PIPE BOLLARDS

PHOTO 4 SPALLED CONCRETE DECK AT THE FBM PIER
NOTE SPLIT PIPE AT LOWER EDGE OF SPALL

dsmEL*plPE BOLLAIRD
CONCRETE 0ECK
WHEELSTO (nMER) IWHEELSTOP
p nMOER DECK MmBeg)
TIMBERFENDER STRIN4ERS FENDER
SYSTEM SYS Em
/ - J/ . CrIMSER)
v

r
4z PILE CAP

X a ACI

'oil -,-rmj5jm plL.Es

ITE 8LCr-K PIER
"ITIMSER

HS-VLLE COMMON SURVEY
C
CZMACAXFMIW.l GRANITE& TIMBER PiER-TYF? SECTION
.%,Cn"wm - empmeers 0 P a Iola
) 11 Canal Strew. P a..*a, p"Wessiamo2m DATE WAY, 1482 FiGURE NO. 4-
GROUP I I

almost total rehab I I itatio'n. The majority of the support piles can be

reused. Fittings for this pier consist of 6 - 12 inch diameter steel

pipes which were fit vertically between the granite blocks. The pipes

(bollards) are located along the centerline of the granite section of

the pier. The pipes appear to be adequate for berthing small
vessels, but their capacitie's (allowable line pulls) cannot be ac-

curately calculated because of the unknown pipe embedment lengths

and extent or existence of any additional construction techniques used

during their placement. No design drawings were located for this

area.

FBM Pier & Access Trestle: The FBM pier appeared in excellent

condition except for isolated damage as noted in the field notes.

There are three small areas on the deck which require minor concrete

repairs one of which was most probably caused by the freezing and

expansion of an encased steel conduit. See photo 4.

Two similar types of construction are utilized in the design of the

FBM Replenishment pier. The access trestle which connects the FBM

Pier to the South Fueling Pier is constructed of precast concrete deck

panels which are set on cast-in-place pile cap beams. The beams

provide -the structural component which ties together the 5 (3

vertical, 2 battered) prestressed precast 18 inch square piles. There

are no longitunal beams other than the precast deck panels. The

FBM Pier Head is constructed of a cast in place reinforced concrete

deck and pile cap beam. Piles are the same size and type as those

used on the access trestle. Piles are spaced and battered In both

directions at various locati .,ons to provide., strength both laterally and

longitudinally. All bollards and cleats were found to be in excellent

condition. Figure No. 5 indicates the typical construction of the FBIVI

pier. Approximately six structural piles were found to have sus-

tained significant damage apparently from external impact. (See

Photo 5) In these cases, the piles are broken at their connection to

the pile cap, the concrete cover gone and the reinforcing exposed

and corroded. On approximately eight other piles, cracking or spall-

ing was noted and the reinforcing. was exposed and corroded. With

the exception of these piles, the remainder of th*e pier looked in

excellent condition.

Numerous concrete support piles were also inspected during the diver

survey from the waterline to the mudline and found to be in excellent

condition with moderate to heavy marine growth on all piles. Selected

piles were scraped and inspected for signs of deterioration (i.e.,

cracks, spalls or staining). No signs of deterioration were observed

below water on those piles inspected. Bottom conditions were rela-

tively flat and c.lear of debris with heavy deposits of marine mussels

and starfish.

Sheetpile Bulkhead: The condition of the steel sheetpile bulkhead is

typically poor. Figure No. 6 presents a typical section of the steel

sheetpile bulkhead and concrete cap. The concrete curb topside has

suffered moderate damage (cracking and spalling). In addition, the

underside of the cantilevered deck slab shows signs of deterioration

and stress (cracking and spalling). The fender system along the

RECAST_'CON CRETE
ECK-- PAUELS

CAST- I N-PLACE
PILE_XAF_B@AM

18-" x .. 16
CONCRETE CONCRETE
5ATTER PILES
PILES

t I

ACCESS TRESTLE

CAST-W- PLACE CONCRETE
_@'DECK- AND PILE CAP BEAM

CONCRET-E.-PILF-S.-I
AL -4L

-BATTER. PILES ARE
FRESENt AT. T4ORT1q_
PIER HEAD-

NOT TO SCALE
MELVUE CONDMON SURVEY
jjTE1

CE MAGUMS, INC. F.B.M. REPLENISHMENT PIER
AtCft tects o Engineers * Planners 7YPICAL SECTION
0 31 C@anai Street Pfo@dence. RhWe [sand O?W3
rATE MAY 198Z@ IFIGURE NO. 5

CONCRETE CAP/@CURB

-ANCHOR DEADMAW
-n:NIBER-: FENDER PILE
(TYPE UNKNOWN)

=c
N\-STEEL TIE ROD

STEEL SHEET PILE

MUDLINE

TIMBER,@,@@ GALVANIZED FASTENERS
-96 rM, r=4

TIMBER FENDER \@TIMBER "CHOCK
P1 LE

MRSLLE CONDMON SURVEY
0
CE MAGUMIES, INC@ TYPICAL FENDER SYSTEM
A;cMdeCts * ErOmeers a Plannem SHEETPILE BULKHEAD
3 Cana4 Street. @rovoderice. Rho(je lwarwOM3 @TE FIGURE. NO.
mmo MAy lq8z I .

bulkhead is almost non-existent and requires total replacement.

Station 0+00 through 0+50 and station 3+50 through 5+75 were visually

inspected +during the diver inspection survey. Other bulkhead areas

were blocked by berth vessels. The cond.ition of the sheetpile bulk-

head below water appeared to be fair with a light marine growth.

Bottom conditions were somewhat steep at the base of the bulkhead

with some IIg:ht steel scrap scattered along the base of the bulkhead.

Inspection at the waterline (low tide) revealed a different set of con-

ditions. The majority of the bulkhead exhibited advanced steel

sheetpile deterioration with large holes in the outboard flange. See

Photo 6. This common occurrence in older steel s.heetpile bulkheads

is caused by the continuous cyclic exposure to salt water and air

(due to the continuous tidal fluctuations, wind and wave splash)

which amplifies the oxidation (rusting) of the steel bulkhead. Deteri-

oration of this type severely reduces the section modulus of the steel

sheeting and therefore substa ntially reduces structural, capability of

the bulkhead. The few remaining fender piles revealed marine borer

attack. at the waterline. See photo 3.

Ultrasonic testing was performed at several locations along the bulk-

head. The test results and profile locations are shown in Figure No.

7. During preparation for the ultrasonic testing, the steel bulkhead

was scraped of existing marine growth and rust. In addition, a thick

layer of black tar-like material which was thought to be the original

protective coating material was sti 11 intact at the lower elevations of

IGM

PHOTO 5 DAMAGED CONCRETE PILES
OF THE FBM PIER HEAD

PHOTO 6 DETERIORATED STEEL SHEETPILE BULKHEAD
NOTE HOLES AT THE WATERLINE
(PHOTO TAKEN AT LOW TIDE)

IiimiiI

TEST LOCATIONS
(ELEVATIONS M.L.W.)

0 0 0

0
0

p
0 ro
Z ;K
c" z
m rn
En
U) P
4,
c L,- ORIGINAL SHEETING THICKNESS
(PRIOR TO 1941)

EDO (n (A W (n r'
Q < rn
z C)
ODm rn
T x + + + + z
0 m 0
x(j) o 6 o LA
m

<
m z
G) W U)
m co o
m
z
0 C-)

the bulkhead. The results of the testing revealed typical deterior-

ation curves for'coated steel in salt water. As shown in Figure No.

7 the most severe reduction of material (steel) was from elevation +6

too MLW, or what is called the splash zone. Thickness measurements

taken at or near the mudline showed significantly less reduction of

material thickness.

Timber Pier: The timber pier located at the south end of the sheet-

pile bulkhead is in poor condition. The timber decking, stringers

and pile caps show moderate damage, primarily rot with the majority

of the deck and superstructure requiring replacement. Several of the

foundation piles are rotted and or split at the top, but may be reused

with some design modification to the stringers and pile caps.

Pier Utilities: Pier utilities were inspected on all structures and were

found to be either none existent or in poor condition. No costs were

developed for replacement of pier utilities with the exception of fire

protection which is addressed in the Utilities section of this report.

It was assumed that developer would provide pier utilities based on

his individual needs and user requirements.

Hydrographic Surveys: The soundings indicate a controlling depth at

the entrance to the inner basin of 23 feet at Mean Low Water. Within

the basin the controlling depth at the south fueling pier is 18 feet at

Mean Low Water, and at the bulkhead,. 17 -feet at Mean Low Water.

The outer berth of the south fueling pier has a controlling depth of

28 feet at Mean Low Water. Maguire's 1980 soundings showed a

controlling depth of 30 feet an the south side of the FBM pier and 40

feet on the north side. A deep hole exists on the north side of the

FBM pier at approximately its mid-point; the hole has a depth of 50

feet at Mean Low Water. At the platform at the end of the FBM pier,

the water depth is 40 feet at Mean Low Water. Based on available

Navy information, supplemented by NOAA c harts, the controlling

depth of the access channel to the Melville fuel piers is 45 feet at

Mean Low Water. Based on this information, it appears that the

Melville piers afford one of the deepest natural terminals in Nar-

ragansett Bay.

As part of the hydrographic survey analysis, available sounding

information was correlated in order to determine the amount of

siltation which has occurred in the recent past. For this analysis,

available Navy soundings taken in 1964 and in 1972 were utilized

along with the Maguire 1980 soundings and the soundings taken for

this project. In all instances where the sounding data overlapped, it

was observed that water depths were the same. There is no record

of any dredging projects during this period. It therefore appears

that little or no siltation has occurred since 1964. Based on this ob-

servation, it is concluded that siltation at the site is negligible.

ANALYSIS OF WATERFRONT STRUCTURES

Based on the results of the waterfront condition surveys, an analysis

was conducted to determine the structural integrity of the piers and

the bulkhead. The purpose.of the analysis was to estimate vertical

and horizontal load capabilities of the piers and to estimate the re-

maining useful life of the structures. The remainder of this section

presents the results of the, analyses.

South Fueling Pier: The condition of the vertical load-carrying

members (i.e., piles and the concrete deck) was found to be in very

good condition. The piles showed some minor checking at the high

water mark, however, this appeared to be surficial, with a majority of

the sound pile remaining. No marine borer activity was observed on

any structural piles. The concrete deck showed negligible signs of

deterioration. Based on these observations, it appears that the south

fueling pier is still capable of accommodating the standard truckloads

for which it was originally designed. This corresponds to an

AASHTO loading of HS 20. The pier can also most probably support

light crane loads, however, the concentrated loads of outrigger pads

should be distributed by means of spreaders.

The horizontal load capabilities of the south fueling pier are somewhat

diminished due to the deterioration of the bracing system. In

general, however, the batter piles serve to carry a majority of the

horizontal load. The bracing serves to stiffen the bent and dis-

tribute the load so that the bent performs as one unit. A nominal

reduction of 20% would be a reasonable adjustment of the original

design loads. Typical lateral loads for this type pier design are in

the range of 2200 lbs. per linear foot per each side (NAVFAC p-272

Definitive Design Drawings) they should therefore be reduced to on

the order of 1800 lbs. per linear foot. The original design loads for

the mooring fittings were recovered during the data search of the

Navy's Public Works files in Newport. Mooring fitting loads were

taken from the Navy's drawing No. 662506 "Rehabilitation of Fuel

Piers". Based on examination and analysis of the fitting foundations,

the allowable loads should be reduced, due to the poor condition of

the concrete support pedestals on which the fittings are mounted. In

their present condition, a conservative reduction of 50% would provide
ample mooring facilities for commerc'ial fishing vessels but would

require rehabilitation for larger ships.

FITTING LOADS

As Designed 50% Reduction

Bollards @300 with horizontal 70,000 lbs. 35,000 lbs.
Low Double Bits 60,000 lbs. 30,000 lbs.
30" Cleats 20,000 lbs. 10,000 lbs.

FBM PIER: No design load data was recovered during the document

search for the FBM Replenishment Pier, some soil profiles and design

drawings were obtained from the '-Navy's Public Works files. Typical

pier design data from the Navy's P-272 Definitive Design Drawings

indicate allowable vertical loadings are in the rage of HS-20 wheel

loads. The original design function of the access trestle was to

provide accessability to the FBM Pier Head for both vehicle traffic

carrying supplies and a raceway for utilities. Therefore, the access

threstle was not designed to provide any lateral resistance other than

those forces from wind and waves. Lateral loads for the FBM access

threstle are limited due to the available number of piles per bent to

resist uplit and the lack of longitunial beams to transfer loads

between pile bents. Pile uplift is one of the structural components'

which is used to provide resistance to horizontal (lateral) loads such

as berthing or mooring of a vessel. The precast concrete concrete

deck slabs which span the 15' pile bents do not provide the struc-

tural component required to transfer normal berthing impact loads to

the foundation piles. Substantial structural modifications would be
required In order to provide berthing' capabi I ities along either side of

the access trestle.

Steel Sheetpile Bulkhead: Detailed examination and analysis of the

field data requires load restrictions be applied to the sheetpile bulk-

head area. The advance deterioration of the steel s heetpile sections,

requires that deck loads be limited to pedestrian and light moving

traffic loads in the immediate area of the -bulkhead face. All new

construction should be restricted from the bulkhead's area of influ-

ence (approximately 45 feet measured from the bulkhead face) until

permanent repairs are made. Factors which have prevented earlier

failure of the bu.lkhead system are; the remaining steel interlocks,

webs, and inside flange faces of the sheetpile; the 6" reinforced

concrete deck slab; the limited present use; and the oversized steel

sheeting which originally provided heavy surcharge load capacities for

the Navys submarine net storage and repair facilities.
18

REMEDIAL MEASURES

Waterfront: In order to develop the scope, extent and budget costs

for rehabilitation of the waterfront facilities, particularly in the case

of the Melville facilities where remedial structural repairs are not

urgent, it is necessary to know the intended reuse of the facilities.

Clearly, the physical needs to berth small fishing craft, for example,

would not be as extensive as the needs of a large cargo port with

associated cranes, heavy trucks and relatively large fendering loads.

For this reason, the scope of work for this evaluation included the

establishment of potential development scenarios. Re medial measures

were then analyzed in relation to the rehabilitation and upgrading

necessary to prepare the site for the typical development.

The original project scope proposed three potential scenarios:

1. Fishing Port,

2. Commercial Cargo Port, and

3. Bulk Terminal

During the early course' of the study, the Rhode Island Port

Authority had narrowed the list of potential developers and was in

negotiations with the most probable candidate. For this reason, the

commercial cargo port scenario was deleted and a scenario similar to

the probable development inserted. The commercial cargo port was

deleted because it presented the least probability of implementation

for the following reasons:

1 The narrow piers are not conducive to efficient cargo

handling operations;

2. Numerous facilities are in existence throughout the Bay to

accommodate existing demands; and

3. Market projections do not indicate a major future demand

for additional facilities beyond existing regional capabilities.

The remainder of this section addresses the 'remedial measures

necessary to prepare the site for the various types of port

operations. Appendix A presents detailed discussions of the needs of

the various development scenarios. This section then quantifies those

needs and addresses rehabilitative work necessary to meet those

needs. Finally, budget cost estimates are presented for the various

items of work. A large amount of the. data presented herein was

drawn from previous studies performed by Maguire for similar

development across the Bay in Quonset- Davisvi Ile as well as from our

involvement with several of the development proposals at Melville.

Fishing Port: Referring to the idealized cooperative fishing port

Figure No. Al of Appendix A, two primary waterfront functions are

required: (1) an area for fish unloading and taking on supplies,

preferably a wharf with contiguous land area for ease in unloading

and handling of the catch, and (2) an area for berthing of the fish-

ing boats, ideally with access for light vehicles. The idealized con-

figuration has been conceptually adapted to Melville in Figure No. 8.

The existing bulkhead which is approximately 550 feet long is ideally

suited for the fish unload.ing/service area. It can typically accom-

modate 4 to 5 boats simultaneously, depending on size. The draft at

the bulkhead, as stated previously, is approximately 15 feet at MLW.

This depth is adequate and no dredging is required. The land area

adjacent to the bulkhead is more than adequate for shore facilities

and the apron adjacent to the bulkhead has a heavy concrete slab,

originally constructed for the anti-submarine nets.

Rehabilitative work necessary for this area and use consists primarily

of repairs to the steel sheetpiles and installation of a new fender

system. As discussed previously in the analysis section, the bulk-

head Is extremely corroded in the spla*sh zone, particularly at the low

waterline and repairs should be made as soon as practical. Similarly,

the fender system, with the exception of a few piles, is non-existent

and therefore, a new system is required. Other items of work to be

considered include repairs and installation of new cleats, installation

of boarding ladders and possibly clearing of debris from the berth.

Repairs to the steel sheetpile are the most difficult problem to evalu-

ate. The ultrasonic tests indicate that, at the mudline, the steel

sheetpile has undergone a slow rate of corrosion. The corrosion rate

increases to the surface, where just below the low waterline, only the

steel at the interlocks and webs remain with the flange steel corroded

through in many places. Unfortunately, the sheetpile in the splash

zone is generally subject to large shear stresses and therefore

presents a weak link in the structural system. Short of drivin g new

SHORE SUPPORT FACILITIES

FISH OFF-L0AD.WQ SERVICE MRTHS

--S@0--UTW lRiELING PIIER"'@
MoNAL TRA*W-NT BERTHs

F5M A"ROACH. TRESTLE q,

F:5m
MER HEAD

MBALLE. CONDMON SURVEY

FISHNG
A,cmtecls Engomm Phwdws
03, Cam$ S"M. PmvKWCS. A 13tand 02M DATE MAY, fq8z FIGURE NO.

sheetpile adjacent to the corroded 'sections, there is no proven system

which is less costly and maintains the necessary structural continuity.

In this case, the bulkhead is still standing, held in place by the tie

rods, the heavy concrete slab and the remaining steel of the inter-

locks and the inboard flanges. Gradually, as the remaining steel

corrodes, the bulkhead will distort and the soil backfill will leach

from behind the bulkhead. Evidence that this may already be taking

place is indicated by the cracking and breakage where the sheetpile

is embedded into the concrete slab as discussed previously. Further,

the deterioration will be accelerated by heavy loads and vibrations on

the apron.

In the case of commercial fishing, where apron loads can be restricted

to light trucks which wou.1d be distributed by the heavy concrete slab

and fish offloading equipment could be set in one spot on prepared

foundations, perhaps an interim solution can be developed which could

stretch the utility of the existing bulkhead for say 5 years. This

will require detailed design analysis and most probably a compromise

in operating loads placed on the bulkhead.

Patchwork will only delay permanent repairs and will not provide

original design capacities. They should be done only with full

cognizance and understanding of risk by the developer.

Buildings should be kept at least 60 feet behind the face of the bulk-

head to minimize foundation loads on the sheetpile, or should be

placed on pile foundations. Similarly, heavy truckloads and heavy

machinery should be set back from the bulkhead to minimize vibration

and heavy loads.

Since the bulkhead area will be very active with boats docking to off-

load and take on supplies then proceeding to their berthing area or

out to sea again, it is anticipated that the fender system will undergo

considerable impact damage. This observation is made based on the

damage observed at Davisvilie by similar vessels. Pending a detailed

evaluation which should take place during design of the fender

system, it appears that a timber pile fender system may be the most

.austere for this project. It is acknowledged that some pile breakage

will most probably occur and the port authority or the developer

(depending on the terms of the lease/sale) should program for annual

maintenance. Damage can be reduced considerably by either up-

grading the fender system to include some type of rubber energy

absorption device or the installation of a low wale at or near the

waterline which is attached to the bulkhead. This wale will stiffen

the system and provi cle a positive backing nearer the point of impact.

If the vessel standoff is not critical, a floating camel may also help to

distribute impact loads. Figure No. 6 presents a typical section of

the fender system. An estimate of costs for the rehabilitation

described above are included in the cost estimate at the end of this

section.

The second waterfront activity at the fishing port is the permanent

berthing of the fishing boats. The inner basin of the south fueling

pier (including the granite extension) provides approximately 1 100

lineal feet of space. The south side of the fuel pier provides an

additional 350 feet. This space appears adequate for approximately 12

boats and could accommodate dou. ble that many if rafting is accept-

able. The water depth of 18-20 feet is also adequate for fishing

boats.

An additional 160 lineal feet of berthing can be added with the

rehabilitation of the timber pier located at the south end of the steel

bulkhead. Repairs would include: removal of the existing deck,

stringers and pile caps: cutting of the rotted top portions of the

piles: and design and construction of new pile caps, stringers and

deck which will accommodate the reduced pile length.

The FBM pier and the west face of the fuel pier provide an additional

2900 linea I feet of space, however, wave and current conditions may

be too extreme for berthing. We are told that the Navy ceased fuel

operations when northwest winds exceeded 20 knots. Further, during

the course of our surveys, we observed rather severe north-south

currents under the FBIVI pier as well as a very uncomfortable chop at

the fueling pier. It is therefore not recommended that these areas be

utilized -for permanent berthing of fishing boats. Such berthing

would most probably result in damage to the boats, the pier fender

system, and possibly to the pier itself. A developer may elect to use

the piers, particularly the west side of the fuel pier on a transient

basis; however, it is stressed that such use should be at the

developer's risk and he should be aware that the boats may fre-

quently have to leave the berths due to wave activity. It is noted

that the granite extension had a timber deck on the west face with

remnants of a timber fender system evident. From this it can be

inferred that some docking of boats took place on the west face in

addition to the protected east face.

The fender system in the inner basin of the south fuel pier, as pre-

viously pointed out, is in fairly good condition. Following repairs to

the system, a floating camel should be added to help distribute impact

loads. Other rehabilitative work at the south fuel pier includes re-

moval of the abandoned fuel lines and installation of appropriately

spaced cleats and ladders. Figure No. 9 presents rehabilitation

concepts discussed herein.

A cost has been presented to replace damaged bracing under the

piers. It is judged, however, that the damage at this time has not

progressed sufficiently to significantly reduce the capabilities of the

pier for the berthing of fishing boats. it is recommended that

periodic inspections of the pier be conducted and when the bracing

damage progresses further that repairs be undertaken.

Regarding repairs to the fender system, it is noted that approxi-

mately 35 fender piles were reported as broken or rotted above the

wale. Since the tops of the piles were uncapped, the rot most

probably occurred from water entering the end grain. Since these

piles appear to be in good condition below the wale, an attempt could

/NEW SHEET PILE BULKHEAD
NEW F04MR sysTEm/
FtEFAIR TIMSFER BULKHEAD
EXTEND PIER

REPAIR FENDER SYSTEM
REPAIR TIMBER VECK/ /@-TtuiseR SWINe,

SOUTH FuEuw= PIER.

RF-MVE EXISTIWA FUEEL DISTRISUMN
SYSTEM. RE-LOCA.'M APPMPRIATE
SOLLARD 4 CLEATS

F5M AFFROACR TRESTLE

PIER HEA0'
-,AD
111-IAIR T1n1-1 1-11-All
IN"

NELVLLE CONDITION SURVEY
0
CK MACAJM14 1W. REQUIRED REHABILITATION
ArCrolMS * Engineers * F"s@s FISHING SCENERIO
31 Canal Street. Provoftrce. W Island 02= DATE FIGURE IN10.
43@ MAY, 198Z I

be made to cut off the damaged portion of the pile, pull it up slightly

and refasten it. This proced.ure was used at the Port of Providence

municipal wharf recently. It is noted that the upper portion of the

pile above the wale is not needed f or fishing boats which would ride

lower on the pile and camel, and therefore, the pile would only have

to be pulled a few feet. It may be desirable to cut all of the fender

piles at the wale and cap them with fiberglass to retard further rot.

In addition, there were approximately fourteen missing piles which

will require replacement. Preliminary budget costs have been

developed for all the rehabilitation discussed above and are included

in Table No. 1. Cost for repair concepts are not listed in order of

priority, actual order and implementation will depend on owner/

developer preference.

Bulk Terminal: The natural deep water at the location of the FBM

pier presents one of the best attributes of the site. The Appendix

discusses the application of this natural attribute to the US East

Coast to Europe trade for bulk carriers on the order of 80,000 dead

weight tons (DWT). Maguire has been involved as consultants on two

such proposals, one dealing with grain and the second with coal.

Figures A-2 and A-3 in Appendix A present the site concepts

considered at the time.

In both concepts, delivery of the cargo to the ships was by overhead

conveyor. It was determined at the time that the foundations of the

FBM access trestle were adequate to support the conveyor loads. By

placing the conveyors overhead, the deck was left free for pedestrian

and light truck access.
26

REHABILITATION BUDGET COSTS

FISHING SCENARIO

TABLE NO. 1

ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT COST PROJECT COST

1 Replace sheetpile bulkhead $2,600/L.F. $1,430,000

2 New timber fender $ 130/L. F. $ 71,500
system @ bulkhead

3 Pull & refasten existing $ 250/ea. $ 10,000
timber piles @ south
fueling system.

4 Replace broken or missing $ 450/ea. $ 6,750
fender piles

5 Remove existing fuel Lump Sum $ 60,000
distribution system
south pier

6 Relocate existing bits & $2,500/ea. $ 42,500
bollards to edge of pier

7 Rehabilitate concrete bit & $ 250/ea. $ 1,250
bollard foundation pedestals

8 Repair fuel pier bracing $ 4.50/bf. $ 40,000

9 Timber deck replacement $ 5.50/S. F. $ 11,000

10 Timber pier extention $ 55.00/S.F. $ 30,800

1. Costs do not include allowances for engineering, contingencies or esculation to a future time
of construction.

As discussed previously in the analysis section, the FBIVI access

trestle does not appear to have been designed for lateral berthing

loads. While there is a horizontal capability inherent in the design,

it is relatively small and far short of that necessary to restrain a

large 80,000 DWT ship. For this reason, independent breasting and

mooring dolphins were proposed for the ship berths.

For the grain terminal, which was the first proposal considered, it

was proposed to berth the ships parallel to the FBIVI Pier. It was

reasoned that all new marine construction could be reached from the

pier thereby reducing new construction costs. For the coal proposal,

a new pier was considered extending in a north-south direction from

the center of the FBIVI pier. In this case, while marine construction

costs were higher, the alignment took advantage of the natural

channel thereby minimizing dredge quantities.

In both proposals, development costs were relatively large on the

order of $50 million and the marine portions were relatively small

percentages of the total project. In any event, site preparation costs

in both cases were negligible since the structures were considered

adequate and all construction was specific to the bulk terminal. For

the -purposes of comparison, we have included in the cost estimates

the costs for the new marine terminal construction and for the

dredging. (See Tab.le No. 2).

Developer's Proposal: The third development concept evaluated was

based on discussions with representatives of the selected developer

mmq six M M

REHABILITATION BUDGET COSTS 4

BULK TERMINAL SCENARIO

TABLE NO. 2

ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT COST PROJECT COST
1 Repair of broken $ 700.00/ea.3 $ 4,200.00
foundation piles, FBM Pier
2 Repair and seal cracked $ 250.00/ea.3 $ 2,000.00
piles FBM Pier

3 Coal handling facility --- $ 5,900,000
improvementp as shown in
Appendix A

4 Mooring dolphins and --- $ 500,000
dredging for grain of
load I ng. faci I ity2as shown
in Appendix A

1. Information extracted from CE Maguire's "Development of a Coal Part" technical proposal.

2. Information extracted from CE Maguire's "Proposed Grain Facility"

3. Mob. and Demob. could be significant for these items, construction should
be scheduled with other marine work.

4. Costs do not Include engineering an allowance, contingencies or esculation to a future
construction date.

and the RIPAEDC. This concept consisted of several uses including a

commercial fishing port at the bulkhead, with berthing of fishing

boats along the fueling pier. A new bulkhead was proposed extend-

ing from the general area of' the existing bulkhead south to the

general area of the foot of the fuel pier. The new bulkhead would

accommodate a travel lift and floating docks for large pleasure boats.

Use of the outer piers had not been definitely established, however,

under consideration was the berthing of large ships, either on a

transient basis or a maintenance storage type agreement similar to

that at Coddington Cove. Figure 10 presents the layout concept

considered under this alternative.

The needs of the fisheries industry have been addressed in the first

development alternative. In this alternative, the new bulkhead area

and berthing of large ships will, therefore, be addressed.

The developers concept called for a sheetpile bulkhead to span from

the southern tip of the existing sheetpile bulkhead to the eastern

abutment of the south fueling pier. The vertical face would then be

adapted with a series of floating docks and access ramps to provide

berthing for large yachts. Steel bulkheads are costly (Table 3) and

require -periodic maintenance to ensure an extended life (as can be

seen by the condition of the existing bulkhead). Two other less

costly solutions which would adapt nicely to the site are a riprap

revetment or a granite block/concrete retaining wall.

BUDGET COSTS

PREFERRED DEVELOPMENT SCENARIO.

TABLE NO. 3

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION UNIT COST PROJECT COST

1-8 fishing See fishing scenario Same as fishing Same as fishing
scenario scenario

9 Mooring dolphins $ 150,000/ea. Variable dependent on
number of ships to be berthed

10 Slips for large yatchs $ 30 - 45/S. F. $ 60,000 - $ 90,000
dock

11 Travel lift runway $ 651S. F. dock $ 50,000
& foundations

12 New seawall (Rip Rap) $ 400/S.F. $ 500,000

13 New Seawall (Bulkhead) $2200/L.F. $2,750,000

14 New Seawall (Granite/Conc.)
$ 825/L.F. $1,031,250

1. Costs do not include an allowance for engineering contingencies, or esculation to a future construction
date.

IE N

NEW SEAWALL FILL

FISH OFF-LOADING 4 SEWCE AREA

MSTING BULKHEAD
TRAVEL LIFT SUPS FOR 10 LARGE
YACHTS. -8.0 KLW.
FLOATIKA DOCKS

DIERTHIK FOR F15HM BOATS
(SEE FIC-AJRF- NO.?)
L@7

SOUTH FUELING PIER
( El@

F5M APPROACH TRESTLE

LONG TERM
SHIP 5TO

LEGEND
a
a NFEW N400RItic-A DaLp"M

@.NEW MdK FITTING
F5M
PIER HEAD

ME-VLLE COND1110N SURVEY

CE MAGUIM 1w. DEVELOPMENT SCENER10
A'CfttecTs e Engmeem w Planners
GROW 31 Cana# Street. ProvgNme. Rhode IsLana 029M DATE MAY, 1-48?- FIGURE NO. 10

Figure No. 11 delineates the rip-rap and floating dock combination

which if properly designed could provide the desired yacht berthing

layout at a substantial reduction in construction cost. This concept

was recently used in two of Maguires Marina design projects in

Bourne Massachusetts and Norwich, CT. In addition to the initial

construction cost savings the rip rap embankment requires little to no

maintenance for a very long life expectancy.

The second concept shown in Figure No. 11 would utilize existing

granite blocks located at the North eastern end of the south fueling

pier and a relatively low concrete retaining wall in order to provide

the developers preferred vertical bulkhead face. Cost savings could

be incurred by both the savings in materials already on hand

(existing granite blocks) and the lack of long term maintenance when

compared to steel sheeting.

Cost developed for this scenario are shown in Table No. 3 and are

not listed in the order or priority. The developer/owner could

execute the rehabilitation concepts in a as needed sequence.

FLOATING
DOCK

RIPRAP

mEr=R PILE

RIPRAP REVETMENT

CONCRETE RETAINING WALL

EARTH Ff

ITF-
RELY5ED
CSRAM
5LoCKS

TIMBER FENDEK PILE,

5TC*4E 5F-DDUING

GRAN ITE BLOCK AND
CONCRETE RETAINING WALL
--co
LL@

MB-VLI-E CONDMON SJRVEY
CK MAWMN@ JW. [email protected]
A crulects * Engrteers a
3; Camel Streo. Pfavoderce. Phom s4M 02M
DATFE MAY Iq8Z FIGURE NO.

I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I UTILITIES
I

WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

Data: Input data obtained for use in this analysis was the "best

available" information based upon U.S. Navy files. Data included

"As-Built" and design drawings of the water system within the study

area and surrounding areas.

Through verbal contact with several users of the system within the

study area and discussion with key personnel employed by the Navy

Utilities Division, and Department of Engineering, information was

gathered which aided in the evaluation of the system's existing

conditions and potential capacities.

Description: The existing water distribution system servicing the

study area was built by the Navy during World War I I and consists of

a loop fed from two directions and tied into a 10-Inch diameter cast-

iron feeder supplemented by a 12-inch diameter cast-iron transmission

line. Water is provided to the Navy by the City of Newport Water

Department and is metered at various locations by the Navy as

portions of the system serve private industries located adjacent to the

study area. The system provides potable water for domestic,

commercial, and industrial use as well as fire protection for Naval and

non-military installations along the shoreline.

The above mentioned loop as shown on Figure No. 12 consists of

approximately 2500 linear feet of 12" diameter and 1550 linear feet of

10" diameter cast-iron piping. An addition, the system consists of

two branches serving the north and south fueling piers which is made
up of 8", 611, 411, 2-1/2" and 2"' diameter cast-iron piping, currently

shut off from the loop. Various other mains served from the loop are

an 8" diameter main providing water to the Navy Steam Plant, an

8" diameter main serving private industries to the north, a 61.1

diameter main providing fire protection to fuel storage tanks along the

south entrance to the Bend Boat Basin, and smaller 4" and 211

diameter mains serving various' buildings and facilities. There are

three hydrants within the study area, No. 13, 14, and 15 which are

fed directly off the loop. The invert elevation of the loop piping is

estimated to be at elevation 5� to 6� M.L.W. Much of the system is

believed to be under tidal influence.

12"
/Z.
12 10, 00

034

17TLVY AREA
13

25
WATER MINC617a

VALVE 43

100 14
24
E
N El

12" -7
0 15 12*
266
--,-/ 12' -
m Z:::@, 20 1- #
'(D $42
x )1312 4s
To
t
> fill
z
:OAD G)
M
so

L-A GUARD 3
"AARA64ANSE T T

FINDINGS

The present demand on the existing water system consists of the

Naval Steam Plant at Melville which provides heat for vario,us build-

ings along with servicing the Navy's tank farms, which are in

-contin.ual use (the water demand here would vary with the ambient air

temperature). In addition, several private (non-military) industries

located at Bend Boat Basin and beyond draw down the system at

rates which vary seasonably. Also the system provides fire pro--

tection for all coastal facilities in the area.

Personnel from the Navy Department of Public Works, Utility Division,

have expressed deep concern and reservations regarding any testing

operations conducted. by their Department on behalf of this office of

the water distribution mains in the study area. In communicating

with Utility Division Personnel, it was learned that the mains in

question have had a history of problems including water main break-

ages, leaking valves, frozen valves, pipe jointing, and brittleness.

These maladies which plague the system have occurred on various

occasions in the past when earth excavations were dug and/or

exercising of the system's valves and fittings was performed.

The Navy stated that because of the questionable condition of its

water mains in this area, written guarantees would be required by

the Rhode Island Port Authority and Economic Development Corpora-

tion to repair and/or replace any and all damages to the water system

in the study area and in related areas which may result from any

testing or exercising of the system and its appurtenances. The Navy

currently conducts fire flow testing in this area twice a year, in the

months of April and October during a time when the system is ap-

parently at low demand. Based on observations during past repair

work on mains in the study area, the Navy has suggested that the

10" and 1211 diameter mains, which consist of unlined cast-iron pipe,

have shown signs of tuberculation.

In light of these circumstances where the integrity of the entire water

system is in question (which the Navy admittedly claims is in weak

condition and which the Navy avoids all unnecessary contact with), it

would be the judgment of this office to abandon plans for any flow

testing or other related direct contact with the water system in order

to defer any responsibility of such systems being borne by this office

and the offices of the Rhode Island , Port Authority and Economic

Development Corporation.

As a result, testing for actual flow pressures to determine losses,

capacities, and demand was not conducted. However, the Navy has

indicated that they would be able to provide 30 thousand G.P.D. to

the potential developer, as required, with minimal effort.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on findings, rehabilitation of the present water system in the

area would not be cost effective due to the unknown condition of the

main's valves, joints, and fittings of the entire system. No lasting

value will result from cleaning tuberculated pipelines unless followed

by appropriate maintenance or installation of a lining.

Conditions which ca.n alter or damage pipeline interiors are sedi-

mentation, organic growths, mineral deposits, tuberculation caused by

an aggressive water supply, corrosion, and poor maintenance. Pipe-

line exteriors can be effected by salt-water tidal influence and soil

chemistry. Considering the fact that water mains in this area are

unlined and are within a tidal influence and that some tuberculation

already exists, It can be assumed that deterioration of pipeline

interiors and exteriors will continue. Significant tuberculation will

cause pipelines to suffer a loss in "C" factor which results in loss of

pipeline capacity. Pipelines whose integrities are weakened by tuber-

culation and externa.1 corrosion are also more susceptible to structural

damage from water hammer (surge).

Therefore., if long-term demands should equal or exceed the afore-

mentioned allowance of 30K G.P.D. provided by the Navy, considera-

tion should be given to the installation of a separate, independently

looped distribution system which would not be affected by future

Naval and commercial expansion outside of the study area.

REMEDIAL MEASURES

information receival during the various meetings with the Navy Public

Works Department suggest that the present water distribution system

in the area under consideration for development is questionable with

regard to its structural integrity. In addition the system is re-

portedly tuberculated and would require considerab-le maintenance.

As indicated previously, if long term demands equal or exceed the

allowable 30,000 GPO than perhaps a new distribution network in the

area of the development should be constructed. For purposes of

providing budget construction cost estimates (See Table No. 4) we

have based cost on a network consisting of pipe sizes identical to

those presently existing and' as shown on Figure No. 12A. Items 1-5

are the cost for providing the new water system replacement network

which as shown on Figure No. 12A is an independent loop with

metering devices. Items 5-8 are the cost for the installation of

additional piping system components needed to provide the Navy with

a compatible looped water system network.

10 L' 0
12"

12
.10
30 28 a. 27 - ---------- NEW'MF-TER Vrrs'--@'

25 If;.-.IFUDY AREA
WATER MAIN(6Vf.
14'T DI-AN
ADDI IONA =Loop VAI-0 4.3
N EP FO
4-

287 loo

J7 jr 72
!] Q 02 IS
231
Iislit 642 43 -74
S41

>
q 4
rri
m 0
m A P, RACI A&4 -,F- T T GUAR
z LA

rn
m m

W no am M mow No

WATER SYSTEM REPLACEMENT

BUDGET COST

TABLE NO. 4

ITEM NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT COST TOTAL

1 Taps w/valves $ 2, 500/ea $ 5,000

2 Gate Valves $ 1, 500/ea $ 18,000

3 Hydrants $ 2, 000/ea. $ 8,000

4 D. 1. Pipe $ 60/L. F. $323,,000

5 Meter Pits $ 30,000/e.a. $ 60,000

6 Taps w/valves $ 2,500/e.a. $ 7,500

7 Gate valves $ 1, 500/e. a. $ 6,000

8 D. 1. Pipe $ 60/L. F. $ 67,200

Costs do include engineering, contingencies, or esculation to a future construction date.

1. Use existing water system install meter pits & valves.

2. Install new water loop to serve the site.

3. Water to piers.

STORM DRAINAGE

Data: Input data o btained for use in this analysis was, the "best

available" information based upon U.S. Navy files. Data included

"As-Built" and Design Drawings of drainage system and topography

maps of contributing drainage area.

Methodology: A field survey was conducted to visually investigate

structural conditions and composition of manholes, catch basins,

gutter inlets and pipelines. (Several structures could not be located

in the field while several others could not be opened.) Depth of

flows were measured and depositions were measured and noted as to

depth and sediment composition.

Topography maps of the Study Area and surrounding contributing

areas were obtained from the Navy and utilized along with drainage

characteristics observed in the fie.ld and design nomographs to deter-

mine overland rainfall runoff and flow times into existing inlet

structures.

The "Rational Method" for determining rainfall runoff as well as

"Manning Pipe Flow Charts" and rainfall intensity and runoff coeffi-

cients were utilized as described in "ASCE-Manuals and Reports on

Engineering Practice- No. 3711 (WPCF Manual of Practice No. 9) for

"Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers," and "Water

and Wastewater Engineering," as referenced for use by Navy Design

Manuals: NAVFAC DM-5.2 (June 1979), and NAVFAC DM-5.3

(June 1979).
36

Results of pipe flow, overland runoff and intensity duration times as

determined by field observations and design calculations were applied

to establish the existing system capacity and the original system

design capacity.

System Description: The existing drainage system is comprised of

vitrified clay and reinforced concrete piping, brick masonry manholes

(with cast-iron covers), catch basins, and gutter inlets, and was

designed in 1943 by the United States Navy. Periodic flooding oc-

curred during severe rain storms and hurricanes.

The outfall storm drains, which flow into the bay from this area, are

influenced by tide levels which submerge manhole inverts beyond each

outfall manhole. Normal tide in this area is 3.5 ft. with mean high

water being 1.84 ft. above mean sea level. Land areas east of the

Railroad tracks drain to an open channel which runs through a por-

tion of the Study Area near its south end and into marsh land before

entering the bay.

The following location maps indicate:

A. Flood Area for Design Hurricane (Figure No. 13)

B. Existing Drainage System within Study Area (Figure No.

14).

PA luc!!!l_

sit
"MAY
@@ 77j_=@.

ZNCZ
.46. .17

.1 s.;wwAmsv

77,

.@h .... ..

ow
V
MA

1.-*@,.-.i-,i :A

UTI
coup-row is

Room

NELVLLE CONDMION SURVEY
0
CZ MAGUIM JWL FLOOD AREA FOR DESIGN HURRICANE
Ammem - E@Weers . Pimmw@
- 31 Carus Street. PfovK*me. Fl we ismid 02903 DATE FIGURE NO.
aflam MAY, 148Z 1 13

Sun s, .1
tu--

C PIN @MVM;iC
.1p

"oil

05
61 04.

ion
F! 3j Rug

FR
03

r 6-7 PARKING ArEA

mammon"

Af?*,:A
OrT

NAKRA
00 6 A
0

z
C, >
M JU)
rn
P

Design Assumptions: The existing pipelines are composed of vitrified

clay or reinforced concrete pipe and appeared to be relatively smooth.

A Design Roughness Coefficient (n) of 0.015 taken from Manning's

Friction Tables was used in determining pipe velocities. By observa-

tion, pipelines and inverts which indicated significant amount of

deposition were calculated to approximate a higher degree of frictional

coefficient when determining actual pipeline capacities and flows.

Where slopes of existing drainage pipelines were unknown an as-

sumption of 2.0 ft./sec. (as recommended in WPCF Manual No. 9 for

"Design and Construction of Sanitary and Storm Sewers) was used to

determine flow time through system and pipeline capacity.

Rainfall runoff calculations were performed for a 2-year and 5-year

storm in compliance with Navy Design Manuals: NAVFAC -DM-5.2 and

DM-5.3 (June 1979). Rainfall intensities were calculated using

duration frequency curves for Providence, Rhode Island as shown on

Figure No. 15. Previous soil investigations taken by means of soil

borings in the Study Area indicate basically a fill area composed of

gray fine sand, miscellaneous fill, and weathered shale. This

Information was taken into account when determining the rate of

natural soil drainage through percolation.

Ov erland flow calculations were developed using the "Yarnells Over-

land Flow Time Monogram" shown on Figure No. 16. Field observation

indicated cover density conditions ranging from paved areas to dense

grass.

HnoH 83d MOM N1 AlISN31NI

fva-VLLE CCMfl'M &FIVEY
MACAUM I FREQUENCY DURATION CURVES
A,crmects - sngneers * P!Rfuw PROVOEWE, R. I.
31 Canaf Strew. PnrKwce..A om lswm 02M MAY, 198?- FIGURE NO. 15
Gnaw

LENGTH 'L:' OF 5TRIP IN FEET
a X.
m -04 (P 0 0
00 0 0

m m ct

PIVOT LINE

7@
N

Y" N @ p
A. 'I ot . li
PERCe@T 5LOPE

-4 02 0
@@l I t'll
m r
INLET CONCENTRATION TIME IN MINUTES
T om
C) ;u
M x
z >
0.00

FINDINGS

Structural Condition: All manholes, catch basins and gutter inlets

investigated were in good general structural condition with the

exception of several catch basin covers which are of the metal hatch

type and, by nature, are loose fitting. Several other catch basins

have wood plank covers with 1/4"+ spacing. The condition of these

wood plank covers varied from totally demolished to properly intact.

Structural masonry walls, inverts, tables and riser rings were found

to be in good condition, metal steps where used were sound.

Pipelines could not be viewed to any significant length beyond each

manhole opening- to detect structural condition. Pipelines located at

manhole junctures appeared to be in good condition with smooth

surfaces, although the amount of depositions found in some manhole

inverts and catch basin sumps would indicate that some deterioration

(jointing, cracking) within the pipeline may have developed.

Deposition: All catch basins and gutter inlets have sumps and were

found to have significant amounts of deposition of a sandy-silt nature

and muddy consistency.

Manholes No. 1, 3, 7, 8, 9 had depositions of muck in inverts and on

manhole tables ranging from 111 to 611.

Sandy-muck depositions were found in pipelines leading to and from

above mentioned manholes with depths of 1/4" to 411.

It should be noted that Manhole No. 18 was found to have a makeshift

circular cover over a square opening. An integral independent 811 VC

pipeline passes through this manhole (Possibly a sanitary line).

Depositions in Manhole No. 18 are of gravel, boulders, bottles and

cans which are somewhat restricting flow through manhole.

Surcharging and Blockage: It appears that tidal influence affects

flow in Manholes No. 1, 2, 3 as water levels in these manholes were

observed- to be above the inverts ranging from 1 ft. at MH 3 to 2.3

ft. at MH 1. This observation was made during an incoming tidal

sequence. A second observation made at Manhole No. 1 during an

outgoing tide sequence indicated a steady drainage flow in the man-

hole with a depth of flow of 5" in the outfall pipe.

Manhole No. 12 was found to be nearly full of water (7.7 ft. ) with no

apparent flow movement. Tide was out when observation was made.

There appears to be a blockage down stream (could not locate down-

stream Manhole No. 19 to verify). Manhole No. 11 upstream had 1 ft.

of standing water over invert with no visible flow.

CONCLUSION

Pipe Capacity: Calculations made to determine rainfall runoff and

contributing drainage area flowing into the existing storm system

indicate insufficient capacity to withstand a 2-year storm. This is

based on optimum conditions at low tide, all pipelines free flowing and

no blockage occurs.

In actuality taking into account, tidal influence, pipeline desposition

and system blockage at Manhole No. 12 to the stilling basin, it is

unlikely that the present system can withstand a 1-year storm. It

should also be noted that many Navy Regulations call for a system

design - to withstand a 10-year storm with an outfall capacity for a

50-year storm.

Assuming future industrial development taking place, it is likely that

additional paved areas and buildings would be constructed along with

residual grassing replacing the presently dense vegetation resulting

in a larger runoff "C" factor than what now exists.

Additional items to be considered is the relative flatness of the study

area which is comprized of marsh land, depressions and a seaward

stream located at the south end. Also, the entire area up to the

railroad tracks lies in a flood plain and has been inundated during
the 1938, and 1954 hurricanes. it is sugg ested that the gutter inlets

of the type found are generally believed !to allow no more than 1 CFS

inflow due to location at curb gutters where gravel buildup occurs.

The inlet system is also subject to complete temporary blockage due to

snow bu.ildup when not properly maintained.

Remedial Measures

In light of the fact that the drainage system is subject to tidal in-

fluence during some storm events it is recommended that new drainage

design and construction be directed towards surface collection

methods rather than subsurface piping networks. Surface collections

methods include drainage swales, surface grading and roadway

gutters.

SEWAGE SYSTEM E.VALUATION

The information 'for this Section is taken from the 1980 Report, "The

Newport Naval Base Wastewater Collection System Infiltration/Inflow

Study," by CE Maguire, Inc., prepared for the RI Port Authority

and Economic Development Corporation.

FINDINGS

It can be seen from the results presented in the above referenced

"Newport Naval Base 1/1 Report" both infiltration and inflow are

present throughout this sewer system. The quantity of 1/1 reported

for this study must be viewed with the understanding that the gaging

period was relatively short and the precipitation during the gaging

was abnormally low.

Even with these limitations, it was clearly seen that substantial

quantities of 1/1 were present and that there was a marked increase

in these quantities when precipitation occurred. This increase, was

not indicative to only the gaging period but can be considered a

normal occurrence within the sewer system. This is evidenced by the

wastewater flow records of the City of Newport. These records

consist of recorded wastewater flows measured at the Newport Waste-

water Treatment, Plant, Parshall Flume, which receives only flow from

the Coddington Cove Pumping Station.

Due to dry weather conditions during the study, the peak wastewater

flows for the Naval Base were not recorded, since- peak wastewater

flows include peak 1/1 flows. Since the minimum remaining capacity

present in the sewer system will occur at these peak flows, no real

estimation of the remaining capacity can be made at this time. How-

ever, since the system was found to be rain responsi ve, we suspect

that during periods of peak wet flows the collection system would be

subjected to considerable 1/1 and thus restrict available carrying

capacity.

Throughout the study, there was no indication that the sewers were

subject to surcharging, except when there were failures in nearby

pumping stations. Therefore, it can be assumed that the most critical

point in the sewer system is the capacity of any pumping station.

Some conclusions can be made as to what capacity would be available

if 1/1 was not a maj or problem within the sewer. Since the weather

during this study was relatively dry, the peak dry weather flows can

be equated with peak design flows.

ANALYSIS

An analysis of the wastewater pumping stations using these peak

design flows is presented hereafter. The pumping station near

Buildings 24 and 81 was installed in mid-1980 and, therefore,

relatively new and considered to be in good operating condition.

This station has two pumps each rated at 150 gpm @ 22 feet of Total

Dynamic Head (TDH), which equates to a pumping capacity of

216,000 gpd. The measured average peak dry weather flow tributary

to the station is 23,000 gpd. This would presently leave an excess

capacity of approximately 193,000 gpd at the station. It should be

noted that, due to the small sanitary flow present, all of this flow is

considered to be 1/1. Therefore, the actual maximum remaining

capacity in this area is the capacity of the station, which is 216,000

gpd.

The pumping station at Building 59 was also installed at the same time

as the one near Buildings 24 and 81. This station is equipped with

two pumps, each rated to pump 180 gpm at 50 feet of TDH which is

equivalent to a capacity of 259,200 gpd. Once again, all the flow to

this station is considered to be 1/1 since the flow gaged flows

indicated little or no variation from day to night. Therefore, the

present remaining capacity at this point is 202,400 gpd. But, as

before the actual remaining capacity could be equated with the

capacity of the pumping station because all of the flow present is 1/1.

The pumping station at Building 988, an older stat ion (early 1970's),

equipped with two pumps each rated to pump 450 gpm at a TDH of

102 feet.. This converts to a capacity of 648,000 gpd. influent

wastewater to this station was measured having an average peak dry

weather flow of 218,600 gpd resulting in a remaining capacity of

approximately 429,400 gpd on a peak flow basis.

CONCLUSIONS

The above results show that based on present domestic wastewater

flows in this system, there seems to be capacity for additional waste-

water flows. The Navy Department of Public Works has agreed to

allowing 40,000 gpd of wastewater to the existing system with the

remaining capacity being reserved for the Navy's future use. Should

more capacity be needed, storage and off-peak pumping can be

utilized; i.e., pumping between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.

This arrangement has been agreed to by the Navy Department of

Public Works for a maximum of 60,000 gal of added flow. This will

result in a total available capatity of 100,000 gpd of wastewater.

The cost of this tank and pumping system is estimated to be

$590,000.

APPENDIX A

DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS

Commercial Fishing Port

OF-7
The establishment of the 200-mile limit has resulted in the

largest expansion of the New England fishing industry in over a

century. Foreign fishing efforts on Georges Bank are being

controlled and significantly reduced, and once-depleted stocks

are recovering. Under-utilized species such as mackerel, squid,

silver lake, and herring offer potential for supporting commercial

fishery operations. Markets, both domestic and foreign, pre-
viously dominated by foreign v'essels operating on the U.S.

continental shelf have been left without a source of supply as a

result of the 200-mile fishing limit. As a result of the potential

for capturing t hese markets, new vessels are entering the New

England fishing fleet and numerous coastal communities are

exploring the possibility of establishing or expanding fishing

industries.

A. Fishinq Industry Characteristics

Fishing ports can be divided into four broad categories, based

on vessel and shore support facility characteristics.

Source: "Davisville Port Expansion", CE Maguire Inc., 1981 for

Rhode Island Port Authority and Economic Development Corp.

A simple landing place with minimal facilities is customarily

used 1by fishermen operating on a daily basis a short

distance from shore. These may be recreational or subsis-

tence fishing operations. Support requirements include a

berthing area, fuel, and vessel maintenance and repair

facilities. Establishments of this type dot the perimeter of

Narragansett Bay. No support facilities for the catch, with

the possible exception of an ice machine, are located at the

landing place since little, if any, of the catch is marketed

commercially'.

2. Vessels making one or two day trips in coastal water have

more sophisticated equipment, are larger than vessels using

a simple landing place, and require a greater degree of

protection and more extensive support facilities. These

vessels generally range from 50 to 75 feet in length. Many

of the harbors in and around Narragansett Bay are typical

of this type of port. Support facilities at dockside may be

limited to ice making, a truck access ramp for offloading

and the same type of vessel-support discussed above, or

may be more sophisticated, including equipment and service

suppliers and a cooler for storage of the catch.

3. Traditional New England fishing ports such as Galilee and

New Bedford are typical of the third type of establishment.

These ports support vessels of 75 to 125 feet that can make

trips of up to two weeks and cover several hundred miles.

These 'vessels require a well developed shore support in-

f rastructu re to service their sophisticated electronic,

hydraulic, pneumatic and mechanical equipment. As with

the type of establishment discussed above, dockside catch-

support facilities may be limited to a cooler and off loading

area, or may include processing, packing and an area for

auction sales of the catch. Fishing cooperatives are be-

coming inc reasingly popular with this type of establishment

and often provide a complete range of services for the

vessel and the catch.

4. "Factory" fishing vessels often stay at sea for months at a

time, operating thousands of miles from home port and re-

turning only for major overhauls or resupply. These

ships, generally Russian, Japanese, West German, can make

calls only at ports with specialized facilities. Processing

facilities for this type of fishing establishment are generally

sophisticated and include complete, often mechanized,

handling equipment. Some processing operations may occur

at sea. Often a factory ship will be accompanied by several

smaller fishing boats.

B. Industry Trends

Most of the traditional New England fishing ports are in the

third category and are evolutionary, in that they developed from

the first or second category. The market potential created by

the establishment of the, 200-mile limit, however, has created new

opportunities a nd has highlighted a potential obstacle in the form

of inadequate and inefficient onshore fish handling and pro-

cessing facilities. Expansion of existing facilities is often dif-

ficult due to physical restrictions. In order to take advantage

of the opportunities created by the 200-mile limit, there have

been several developments in the fishing industry. I n some

cases, establishment of an integrated fishing operation with a

complete range of support and automated handling and pro-

cessing facil.ities adjacent to the berthing area has been achieved

in a previously undeveloped area. In other cases, cooperatives

have been established in traditional fishing ports, offering

improvements in catch handling, processing and selling proce-

dures, due to sophisticated technologies and economies of scale.

The establishment of a cooperative, however, is contingent on

the cooperation of loca.1 fishermen, who are often strongly op-

posed to any real or imposed restrictions on their traditional and

highly valued independence.

Until recently, the trend in the fishing industry has been to

larger vessels, due mainly to "trading up" within the fishing

f I eet, with most of the sold vessels remaining in operation..

Large vessels allow increased range and longer fishing time per

tri p, but the rapid increases in fuel prices since 1973 have

begun to limit the cost-effectiveness of larger boats. I t now

appears that the optimal vessel size is 75 to 95 feet, due to

economics and the availability of adequate shore support facil-

ities. As discussed previously, this size vessel is more likely to

be involved in a fishing cooperative or an integrated fishing port

than a smaller vessel.

C Facility Needs

A study prepared by the University of Rhode Island Coastal

Research Center on Commercial Fishing Facility Needs in Rhode

Island for the Rhode Island Coastal Management Program con-

servatively estimates that 45 to 200 additional fishing vessels will

be in demand in New England within the next 10 years, with 11

to 60 of these based in Rhode Island if adequate facilities are

available. This represents an increase of about 25 percent over

the present fishing fleet of 125 vessels. In addition, significant

numbers of vessels from other areas of the East Coast could

relocate to Rhode Island should berth space become available.

However, traditional Rhode Island fishing ports such as Newport

and Galilee have been expanded to their practical limits or are

occupied at near capacity levels, and significant expansion in

either area would encounter significant political, economic and

social resistance. It has been estimated by the University of

Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center that the surplus US Navy

land in Melville can accommodate up to 30 vessels. These

vessels would range from 45 to 95 feet in length, with a few

possibly as big as, 125 feet, and would have drafts of 6 to 18

f eet. Based on the distance from Narragansett Bay to Georges

Bank (approximately 200 miles), most of the vessels operating

out of Rhode Island ports would probably be in the 75 to 95 foot

range. This would result in a need for approximately 1500 to

2000 feet of additional berthing space in Narragansett Bay and

approximately 8 to 20 acres of back-up space if sorting, pro-

cessing, packing, and sales operations are located adjacent to

the berths. If the catch is off-loaded onto trucks for pro-

cessing elsewhere, approximately 5 acres of land adjacent to the

berthing area would be required for gear storage parking, fuel,

pump-out facilities, ice-making, and supply services. Given the

limited number of potential sites in Rhode Island, it appears that

unless existing facilities can be expanded or new sites

cleveloped, additions to the New England fishing fleet will locate

elsewhere. Figure B-1 shows an idealized configuration for the

type of facility that could be provided at Melville. The actual

configuration will be dependent upon the size of the fleet,

species being caught and configuration of the available land

area. Depth alongside the wha rf should be deep enough to

accommodate vessels at all tide levels. The maximum draft that

can be expected is 15 feet thereby requiring a 18 to 20 foot

berths.

Melvil.le has a number of advantages in considering the potential

location of a fishing industry there. The existence of berthing

space and shore support infrastructure minimizes development

requirements. There is also adequate water depth available

alongside the piers and bulkhead, another considerable ad-

vantage since dredging and disposal of dredge spoils is in itself

costly and ca n involve a lengthy and expensive permit process.

Melville is also well served by road and rail, and has back-up

land available adjacent to the berthing area. Since the port area

of Melville is isolated from nearby commercial /residential areas

and is and has been primarily industrial, environmental concern

over establishment of a fishing industry would not be as great

as in other Narragansett Bay sites. These factors appear to

indicate that there will be a future demand for fishing industry

berthing and support facilities in Rhode Island. This offers a

potential developmental opportunity for Melville. The impact of

the fishing industry on Melville would be minor if limited to

offloading and support facilities or it could be extensive if

establishment of an integrated fish plant or a fishing coopera-

tive, was to take place. This is dependent upon the level and

type of development desired by the Rhode Island Port Authority

and potential developers.

Bulk Terminal

In considering potential development scenarios for Melville, it would

be negligent if the most favorable asset of the site, namely its deep

water, were not considered. East Passage up to Melville, with a con-

trolling depth of 74 feet at Mean Low Water is one of the deepest pro-

tected harbors an the east coast. Further, immediately adjacent and

north of the FBM pier is a small 50 foot basin. Existing depths at

the approach to Melville are in excess of 40 feet at MLW and with

minor dredging could match the basin north of the FBM pier. It

should also be noted that the hydrographic analysis of this study

concluded that little or no siltation occurs at the Melville site.

The site, therefore, is ideally suited to accommodate large deep draft

ships and this scenario therefore takes maximum advantage of

Melville's major natural attribute. In general, there are three

primary commodities which are dependent on large bulk carriers and

utilize east coast ports; they are: petroleum products, coal and

grain.

The deep-draft category, includes many of the newer dry and, liquid

bulk carriers. Tankers of 500,000 DWT and dry-bulk carriers of

250,000 DWT are already in operation. The vessels draw so much

water, that their concept begins with the proposition that only special

terminals at limited locations in the world will be usable. The depth

of water required by these carriers usually require reaching out to

deeper open water to construct an offshore type of berthing and

unloading arrangement. Petroleum tankers lend themselves to these

technological applications somewhat more easily than- do dry bulk

carriers, the chief difference being that the tanker needs only hose

connections and pipes to load or unload at the berth, whereas a bulk

carrier generally requires unloading or loading equipment plus con-

veyor transporting or storage equipment. The offshore dry-bulk

terminal thus typically represents a more complex undertaking.

Melville, with its deep water relatively near shore, offers an inherent

advantage for dry bulk terminals. While it would not be able to

handle the superships, it could be the only port to connect the

lucrative US East Coast to Rotterdam route by accommodating the 80

.to 100,000 deadwe-ight ton (DWT) ships which are now handled in
Rotterdam. These ships need typically '50-60 feet of water.

Regarding the so-called tanker-glut which exists in the world, this

surplus is a result of supply and demand for petroleum tankers

brought on by substantial orders for new vessels stimulated by high

shipping prices. The increased capacity was coupled with reductions

in petroleum consumption resulting from embargos and high petroleum

prices. The net result was in a significant reduction in tanker

capacity demand. This surplus, however, does not negate the need

for a deepwater terminal, since the larger class vessels are more

efficient.

A similar situation may be impending for coal transport terminals.

Because of the existing demand for coal overseas, and the congestion

at major east coast coal ports, numerous projects to develop new coal

terminals have been proposed. It has been said that if a majority of

these proposals come to fruition, there will be an excess in terminal

capacity. Herein lies another advantage at Melville. A majority of

the new coal port proposals require the construction of extensive new

pier facilities including extensive dredging of channels and berths.

Recognizing the long lead time necessary for the permit approval

process and for design and construction, many of the proposed ter-

minals will not come on line for several years in the future. Melville

already has a waterfront infrastructure in place which reaches to the

deep water. The opportunity therefore exists to bring a Melville coal

terminal on line years ahead of the competition which would present a

lucrative competitive advantage.

In addressing MelvUle's potential as a bulk terminal, a major disad-

vantage must also be considered. Most bulk deliveries would come

overland by rail (unit trains). The existing railroad structure to the

site is in poor condition both physically and organizationally. There

may also be concern that the advent of unit trains through New

England could have a significant impact on the region. In the several

bulk terminal ventures where Maguire . has provided consulting

services, the railroad service has been the major factor in the lack of

successful implementation. Should the railroad issue be resolved,

Melville could become one of the most successful bulk terminals on the

east coast.

Dry bu-Ik terminals generally consist of piers or sea islands. They

are generally located near shore. Because of the need for conveyors

to deliver the cargo from storage to the pier, conveyors are generally

supported over water on trestles which also provide pedestrian and

possibly light vehicle access. A crane is needed to load the ship and

therefore, a substantial pier structure is needed to support the crane

and conveyors. Cranes are generally gantry type traveling on rails

in order to reach all of the ship's holds. Since the location of crane

rails are fixed, the pier is generally a skeleton structure with heavy

fou'ridations under the crane rails and lighter structures for pedes-

trian and light veh icle access as well as for conveyor support.

Typical layouts for a coal terminal and grain terminal are shown on

Figures B2 and B3, respectively. These layouts were obtained from

conceptual designs for previous proposals at the Melville site.

Ships which could take advantage of the water depth at Melville (50

feet at MLW with minor dredging) would be in the 80 to 100,000 dead

weight ton (DWT) class, and would typically have a length on the

order of 800 to 900 feet and a beam of 120 feet.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
if
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I APPENDIX A
I

APPENDIX

DEVELOPMENT SCENARIOS

Commercial Fishing Port

The establishment of the 200-mile limit has resulted in the

largest expansion of the New England fishing industry in over a

century. Foreign fishing efforts on Georges Bank are being

controlled and significantly reduced, and once-depleted stocks

are recovering. Under-utilized species such as mackerel, squid,

silver lake, and herring offer potential for supporting commercial

fishery operations. Markets, both domestic and foreign, pre-

viously dominated by foreign ves-sels operating on the U.S.

continental shelf have been left without a source of supply as a

result of the 200-mile fishing limit. As a result of the potential

for capturing these markets, new vessels are entering the New

England fishing fleet and numerous coastal communities are

exploring the possibility of establishing or expanding fishing

industries.

A. Fishing Industry Characteristics

Fishing ports can be divided into four broad categories, based

on vessel and shore support facility characteristics.

Source: "Davisville Port Expansion", CE Maguire Inc., 1981 for

Rhode Island Port Authority and Economic Development Corp.

A simple landing place with minimal facilities is customarily

used by fishermen. operating on a daily basis a short

distance from shore. These may be recreational or subsis-

tence fishing operations. Support requirements include a

berthing area, fuel, and vessel maintenance and repair

facilities. Establishments of this type dot the perimeter' of

Narragansett Bay. No support facilities for the catch, with

the possible exception of an ice machine, are located at the

landing place since little, if any, of the catch is marketed

commercially.

2. Vessels making one or two day trips in coastal water have

more sophisticated equipment, are larger than vessels using

a simple landing place, and require a greater degree of

protection and more extensive support facilities. These

vessels generally range from 50 to 75 feet in length. Many

of the harbors in and around Narragansett Bay are typical

of this type of port. Support facilities at dockside may be

limited to ice making, a truck access ramp for offloading

and the same type of vessel-support discussed above, or

may be more sophisticated, including equipment and service

suppliers and a cooler for storage of the catch.

3. Traditional New Eng land fishing ports such as Galilee and

New Bedford are typical of the third type of establishment.

These ports support vessels of 75 to 125 feet that can make

trips of up to two weeks and cover several hundred miles.

These- vessels require a well developed shore support in-

frastructure to service their sophisticated electronic,

hydraulic, pneumatic and mechanical equipment. As with

the type of establishment discussed above, dockside catch-

support facilities may be limited to a cooler and off loading

area, or may include processing, packing and an area for

auction sales of the catch. Fishing cooperatives are be-

coming increasingly popular with this type of establishment

and often provide a complete range of services for the

vessel and the catch.

4. "Factory" fishing vessels often stay at sea for months at a

time, operating thousands of miles from home port and re-

turning only for major overhauls or resupply. These

ships, generally Russian, Japanese, West German, can make

calls only at ports with specialized facilities. Processing

facilities for this type of fishing establishment are generally

sophisticated and include complete, often mechanized,

handling equipment. Some processing operations may occur

at sea. Often a factory ship will be accompanied by several

smaller fishing boats.

B. Industry Trends

Most of the traditional New England fishing ports are in the

third category and are evolutionary, in that they developed from

the first or second category. The market potential created by

the establishme nt of the 200-mile limit, however, has created new

opportunities and has highlighted a potential obstacle in the form

of inadequate and inefficient onshore fish handling and pro-

cessing facilities. Expansion of existing facilities is often dif-

ficult due to physical restrictions. In order to take advantage

of the opportunities created by the 200-mile limit, there have

been several developments in the fishing industry. I n some

cases, establishment of an integrated fishing operation with a

complete range of support and automated handling and pro-

cessing facilities adjacent to the berthing area has been achieved

in a previously undeveloped area. In other cases, cooperatives

have been established in traditional fishing ports, offering

improvements in catch handling, processing and selling proce-

dures, due to sophisticated technologies and economies of scale.

The establishment of a cooperative, however, is contingent on

the cooperation of local fishermen, who are often strongly op-

posed to any real or imposed restrictions on their traditional and

highly valued independence.

Until recently, the trend in the fishing industry has been to

larger vessels, due mainly to "trading up" within the fishing
fleet, with most' of the sold vessel's remaining in operation.

Large vessels allow increased range and longer fishing time per

trip, but the rapid increases in fuel prices since 1973 have

begun to limit the cost-effectiveness of larger boats. it now

appears that the optimal vessel size is 75 to 95 feet, due to

economics and the availability of adequate shor e support facil-

ities. As discussed previously, this size vessel is more likely to

be involved in a fishing cooperative or an integrated fishing port

than a smaller vessel.

C Facility Needs

A study prepared by the University of Rhode Island Coastal

Research Center on Commercial Fishing Facility Needs in Rhode

Island for the Rhode Island Coastal Management Program con-

servatively estimates that 45 to 200 additional fishing vessels will

be in demand in New England within the next 10 years, with 11

to 60 of these based in Rhode Island if adequate facilities are

available. . This represents an increase of about 25 percent over

the present fishing fleet of 125 vessels. In addition, significant

numbers of vessels from other areas of the East Coast could

relocate to Rhode Island should berth space become available.

However, traditional Rhode Island fishing ports such as Newport

and Galilee have been expanded to their practical limits or are

occupied at near capacity levels, and significant expansion in

either area would encounter significant political, economic and

social resistance. It has been estimated by the University of

Rhode Island Coastal Resources Center that the surplus US Navy

land in Melville can accommodate up to 30 vessels. These

vessels would range from 45 to 95 feet in length, with a few

possibly as big as 125 feet, and would have drafts of 6 to 18

feet. Based on the distance from Narragansett Bay to Georges

Bank (approximately 200 miles), most of the vessels operating

out of Rhode Island ports would probably be in the 75 to 95 foot

range. This would result in a need for approximately 1500 to

2000 feet of additional berthing space in Narragansett Bay and

approximately 8 to 20 acres of back-up space if sorting, pro-

cessing, packing, and sales operations are located adjacent to

the berths. If the catch is off-loaded onto trucks for pro-

cessing elsewhere, approximately 5 acres of land adjacent to -the

berthing area would be required for gear storage parking, fuel,

pump-out facilities, ice-making, and supply services. Given the

limited number of potential sites in Rhode Island, it appears that

unless existing facilities can be expanded or new sites

developed, additions to the New England fishing fleet will locate

elsewhere. Figure B-1 shows an idealized configuration for the

type of facility that could be provided at Melville. The actual

configuration will be dependent upon the size of the f leet,

species being caught and . configuration of the available land

area. Depth alongside the wharf should be deep enough to

accommodate vessels at all tide levels. The maximum draft that

can be expected is 15 feet thereby requiring a 18 to 20 foot

berths.

Melville has a number of advantages in considering the potential

location of a fishing industry there. The existence of berthing

space and shore support infrastructure minimizes development

requirements. There is also adequate water depth available

alongside the piers and bulkhead, another considerable ad-

vantage since dredging and disposal of dredge spoils is in itself

costly and can involve a lengthy and expensive permit process.

Melville is also well served by road and rail, and has back-up

land available adjacent to the berthing area. Since the port area

of Melville is isolated from nearby commercial /residential areas

ACCESS ROAD

PARKING
(-----LLLLLLL ------------- LLLLLWi, I If I III I I IILLtLMLLL(--)

PARKING

PROCESSING FREEZER

TRUCK LOADING

ICE MAKING\ TRUCK LOADING
UCTION
GEAR SUPPLIES
STORAGE

c=
FISH UNLOADING

V SSE BE HI
E L RT NO

MR-AlE. COMMON SURVEY

ca ?"aulm 1w. IDEALIZED R5HINGA FACILITY
acr-twecti * Emgmeefs * Poawwj

10
1
10
0

Q2 c

Ea:

ZfAg
to

I-COUVEYOR
Tol m.0
'0", 1@
no -t-I
;0. 0 fa ta -IR
Z 13 r- ol
z
r >
c

m
z r
>

C=
<
m

ipi

T OR 0
0
@o
fig
i
-.0()0
8o -
_0
1000:
0

>
I
rn K
P

-4 F-n
CO C)

-n

rn
T-
> Cj)
< C:
:X)
c <
M