ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
OF PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO
GALLOWS BAY COMMERCIAL HARBOR FACILITIES
ST. CROIX} U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
SUBMITTED TO
VIRGIN ISLANDS PORT AUTHORITY
SUBMITTED BY
THE ISLAND RESOURCES FOUNDATION
Post Office Box 4187
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands
00801
PREPARED BY
DAVIDA. OLSEN} PH.D.} PROJECT DIRECTOR 1
EDWARD L. TOWLE} PH. D.} RESOURCE PLANNER 1
GEORGE F. TYSON} JR.} HISTORIAN1
DENNIS K. HUBBARD} PH.D.} SEDIMENTARY GEOLOGISl
June 1978
1 Island Resources Foundation, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands
2 West Indies Laboratory, Fairleigh Dickinson University, St. Croix, Virgin Islands
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
i
Executive Summary
ii
1. 00
PROJECT DESPRIPTION
1
1. 01
General Description and Purpose
1
1. 02
Location of the Project
1
1. 03
Engineering Description of the Project
1
1. 04
Mitigating Plans for Construction and Operation
1
1. 05
Relationship to Other Facilities
1
2.00
ENVmONMJii}NT-AL.SETT~ENS:WITH8B'J;'THE PROJECT
6
2.01
Landform
6
2.02
Drainage
6
2.03
Geology and Soils
7
2.04
Seabed
7
2.05
Water Resources
8
2.06
Potable Water Resources
8
2.07"
Oceanography
8
2.08
Tides
11
2.09
Wave Impact
11
2. 10
Marine Water Quality
13
2. 11
Living Resources
13
2.12
Rare and Endangered Species
13
2. 13
Marine Ecology
15
2. 14
Climate and Weather
19
2. 15
Rainfall
22
2. 16
Air Quality
23
3.00
RELATI0.NSHIP-OFFTHE PROPOSED PROJ'ECT
23
TO. hAND, USE PLANS
4.00
PROBABLE1rIMPAC'FOF THE PROJECT
25
4.01
Topographic Impact
25
4.02
Drainage
25
4.03
Impact on the Marine Environment
26
4.04
Erosion
26
4.05
Fresh Water Resources
26
4.06
Potable Water
26
4.07
Impact on Existing Wate rways
26
4.08
Water Turbidity and Sedimentation
27
4.09
Terrestrial Vegetation
27
T ABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
4.10
Endangered Species
27
4. 11
Atmospheric Impact
28
4. 12
Impact on Historical and ArchaeologicalResources
28
4. 13
Visual Impact
28
4. 14
Recreational Use
28
4. 15
Positive and Arne liorative Effects
28
5.00
POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT
29
BE AVOIDED
6.00
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION
29
7.00
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM
29
USES OF MAN'S ENVm.oNMENT AND ENHANCEMENT
OF WNG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
8.00
m.REVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS
30
OF RESOURCES WHICH WOULD RESULT FROM PRO-
JECT IMPLEMENTATION
8.01
Natural Resources
30
APPENDIX I: Currents In Gallows Bay
31
APPENDIX II: Sediments of Gallows Bay
38
APPENDIX III: History and Archaeo logy of
64
Gallows Bay
LITERATURE CITED
77
Table I.
Table II.
Table III.
Table IV.
Figure 1-3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
LIST OF TABLES
Summary of Water Quality Parameters
Terrestrial Vegetation
Fish A 19ae and Mo lluscs of Ga llows Bay
Average Monthly R.ainfall
LIST OF FIGUR.ES
Engineering Drawings of Project
Currents on Incoming Tide
Currents on Falling Tide
Areas of Similar Current Velocity
Biological Associations in Gallows Bay
Location of Benthic Transects
14
16
20-21
24
3-5
9
10
12
17
18
- i -
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The present effort was greatly facilitated by the cooperation of the staff
of the Virgin Islands Port Authority, Gallows Bay facility. Mr. Claude
Berry, Gallows Bay Port Captain, supplied much of the information and
drawings. R.onald Tutein and R.oberto Incarnacion skillfully operated the
boats during the current study. John Woods, Virgin Islands Port Authority
Special Projects Director, assisted in many ways. Thanks are also due
to Ms. Kathy Finnerty and Ms. Judith Towle for typing and editorial review
of the document,respectively.
- ii -
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An environmental assessment of the proposed modifications to the Gallows
Bay commercial harbor facility was undertaken'from mid-May to mid-
June, 1978. The modifications include clam shell 'dredging of approx-
imately 7,500 cubic yards of terrestrial sediments which have been de-
posited in the northeast corner of the bay during flood conditions in the
past decade. The dredged material is to be deposited behind a 273 foot
sheet pile bulkhead to provide additional parking for container shipping
and additional vesse 1 dockage and offLoading facilities. The major anti-
cipated impact on the marine environment will be increased turbidity
during the actual construction. The observed currents lack sufficient
velocity to transport suspended sediments of the particle sizes observed
out of the bay. Local marine environmental impact is expected to be
confined to the Gallows Bay commercial area.
The Gallows Bay area is subject to occasional heavy flooding. A review
of available historical information indicates that much of the present day
commercial port facility is situated on the site of a previously filled in
shallow pond area. This modification, which took place between 1794
and 1856, probably significantly reduced the natural ability of the land-
form to absorb runoff. The project, as designed, requires an extension
and redirection of the existing concrete runoff channel, but we do not
anticipate that this modification will alter its effectiveness during times
of normal flooding.
The major impacts of the project will be confined to increased noise
levels during construction and then, subsequent to construction, when
an anticipated increased cargo load will pass through Christiansted's
already congested streets. This latter problem should be resolved as
plans are underway to establish a major commercial port on the south
shore of St'~ Croix and to develop the GaLLows Bay area as a recreational
boating center. The proposed modifications will enhance the use of the
area as a recreational facility.
-1-
GALLOWS BAY ENVIR.ONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT
1. 00 PROJECT DESCHIPTION
1. 01 GENEHAL DESCHIPTION AND PURPOSE. The Port Authority of the
U. S. Virgin Islands plans to dredge the northeast segment of the exist-
ing Gallows Bay commercial harbor facility (using a clam shell dredge)
to remove 7,500 cubic yards of essentially terrestrial sediments from
a 0.31 acre borrow area and deposit the spoil behind a 273 linear foot
sheet steel piling bulkhead. It also proposes to construct an extension
of the existing flood control ditch and expand (by approximately 0.67
acres) the existing parking facility for container ship roll-on/roll-off
trucks. The new facility will also provide additional storage for contain-
er cargo and increase the available bulkhead for unloading vesse ls by
approximately 25 percent. The project appears to be completely consis-
tant with current usage of the area and to offer no serious environmental
problem.
1. 02 LOCATION OF THE PROJECT. The project is to be located on the site
indicated (see engineering drawing Figure 1) in Gallows Bay, Christian-
sted, St. Croix, U. S. Virgin Is lands.
1. 03 ENGINEEHING DESCHIPTION OF THE PHOJECT. The engineering
drawings of the project, furnished by the Virgin Islands Port Authority,
are shown in Figures 1 - 3. They diagram the construction of the fac-
ility in an area of Gallows Bay which is presently the site of a delta of
terrestrial debris and sediments at the head of the existing drainage
control ditch. This ditch currently crosses the existing port facility
parking area.
1. 04 MITIGATING PLANS FOR CONSTHUCTION AND OPERATION. The
proposed use of clam shell dredging techniques and &JQth,s'edim,ent;
filters in the actual construction should significantly reduce the release
of fine sediments into the area. The Port Authority will also attempt
to complete the construction operation expeditiously in order to reduce
noise, dust, and smell in the region of the project. This attempt is
being made since, in Gallows Bay, light industry (zoned W-3) immediate ly
abuts medium residential land (zoned H-3).
1. 05 HELATIONSHIP TO OTHEH FACILITIES. The proposed bulkhead does
not extend beyond the present boundaries of the Port Authority land
holdings at Gallows Bay. The parcel immediately adjacent to the south
is government owned and is currently used as a site of operations for
approximately 30 local fishing boats, some anchored and some pulled
-2-
Figures 1, 2, and 3. Engineering plans for port modifications at Gallows
Bay, Christiansted, St. Croix, U. S. Virgin Islands.
The proposed project involves construction of a 273
linear foot sheet piling bulkhead, c lam shell dredg-
ing of 7,500 cubic yards of essentially terrigenous
sediments and debris from a 0.31 acre borrow area
and deposition of the spoil in 0.67 acre spoil area.
The project will create new bulkhead facilities and
storage area for containerized, roll-on/roll-off
truck borne cargo.
-3-
FIGUHE 1
~----.--------------------------~--------------~----------------------------c.:8E' ReJI10;edo"
C/(I'm SheiL.
It..
\
1.tht:t::12 Q? 3
l.. ......
....
. _._ ...... __ ----....... --~'-.
-4-
'"
..
"/-
\
\ .,.
..... \
y.
\ .,.
\ .,.
\.
".
.~'
\
.
\
~d·
-...:
.,.
".t:
.....
. :-
~~.~ .~,,~' ~
. . ...•..
~;-v)(
-5-
FIGUHE 3
-' . .
,.~
,
"1.·-~~'1'·" ,
",
.'
" 1f-'---J4
•
I '
•. ,< .... , ..
~~: " ~ .
,
"
" ,j'
'I
.~ ..
'
'" ";"."
.... .' ..
-'~
;, 'isl£ C rto'JI "C':' (' ,
stcO'/~~:; ";
-6-
up on shore. There is also considerable use of this parce 1 and the Port
Authority facilities on weekends by recreational and quasi-commercial
fishermen. The parcel immediately to the north of the Port Authority
holdings is owned by St. Croix Marine Development and is operated as
a boatyard and marina. The new facilities will enable the Gallows Bay
Harbor to handle anticipated increased small vessel shipping traffic in
the future. The land to the east is owned by a variety of private indivi-
duals and embraces both residential and commercial properties. At
present the facility appears to be handling traffic at about full capacity.
The new facilities may lead to increased commercial traffic within Gal-
lows Bay, and this may slightly reduce the available space for commer-
cial/recreational fishing boat moorings that are currently located with-
in the area of the Port Authority submerged lands holdings. Fort Christ-
ianvaern and the Christiansted National Historic Site at the far southwest
corner of the bay will not be impacted by the project. The Christiansted
harbor area was developed under U. S. Department of the Interior Blan-
ket Permit No.7. During construction, there will be a temporary in-
crease in noise and dust which will end with project completion. The
main effect of the project upon adjacent facilities will be coincident with
the ability of the Port facilities to handle minor increases in shipping and
roll-on/roll-off truck traffic until such time as alternative facilities are
deve loped elsewhere, probably at the proposed south St. Croix Port fac-
ility as is currently being planned and negotiated.
2.00 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING WITHOUT THE PROJECT
2. 01 LANDFORM. The Gallows Bay area is situated in a flood plaing,rea.Qf
low reW~f immediately to the southeast of Mt. Welcome. Whetten (1974)
shows that the underlying formations are primarily recent alluvium and
are made up of beach sand, beach rock, and stream deposits. A review
of the available historical information (see Appendix III) reveals that
much of the Gallows Bay area was originally a pond or mangrove lagoon.
Between 1780 and 1856 this area was filled in, forming the site of the
present Gallows Bay light industrial zone. Presently much of the overly-
ing sediments in the area of the commercial harbor facility are dredged
marine sediments whose composition is described from a series of cores
collected prior to the 1963 construction of the harbor facility. There is
an additional terrestrial sedimentary component which has been carried
down the flood control ditch in 1974 and again in October of 1977.
2.02 DRAINAGE. The entire Gallows Bay area is part of a large tidal plain
which extends from the eastern side of Mt. We lcome west through the
town of Christiansted itse If (Corps of Engineers Report, 1975). There
-7-
has been considerable flooding in 1974 and again in October 1977. On
both occasions considerable terrestrial sediment and debris was carried
into the bay. This terrestrial input has resulted in a shallowing of the
northeast corner of the harbor from a dredged depth of 16 feet to a cur-
rent average of 4 to 6 feet. There is also an extensive "delta" of ter-
restrial sediments and debris at the mouth of the flood control ditch.
This flood control ditch was apparently constructed along the course of
an existing stream or drainage channel, originating in the mountains
near Lang Observatory which is shown in nineteenth century maps of the
area. It is apparent, from a review of historical information, the Corps
of Engineers reports and interviews with knowledgeable persons regard-
ing the question of flooding in the area, that the flood control channel is
inadequate to handle the unusually heavy rainfalls which do occur, however
infrequently.
2.03 GEOLOGY AND SOILS. The water shed adjacent to the Gallows Bay area
is underlain by three geologic formations, the previously described alluv-
ium and beach deposits, tuffacious formations and the Caledonia formation
(Whetton, 1974). The soils in the Gallows Bay area are Jaucaus sand and
Isaac gravelly clay loam. The soils of the watershed area are Cramer
grave lly clay loam, Levallee grave lly c lay loam, Made land, and San Anton
clay loam (R.ivera, et. al., 1970).
2.04 SEABED. The seabed and sedimentary geology of Christiansted harbor
have been extensively investigated by Nichols, et. al. (1972). Our infor-
mation on Gallows Bay sediments comes from aseries of 13 surface and
near surface sediment samples taken as part of this study. The results
(shown in Appendix II) indicate a rather uniform sediment distribution.
The sediments are poorly sorted and most (consistently over 50 percent)
are in the fine sand range (0.625 to o. 125 mm). Some researchers fee 1
that sediments in this range should be considered as mud. Transport
of sediments of this particle size requires currents in the range of 0.24
to 0.32 m/ sec. As noted in the present study (section 2.07), the highest
current observed within the Gallows Bay commercial facility was O. 1
m/ sec., and transport out of the bay area will probably be associated
with heavy ship traffic. Suspension of the sediments can be accomplished
by currents as low as O. 17 m/ sec., and our results would indicate that
currents in this range may occur within Gallows Bay at times of maxi-
mum tidal flow and at times when water transport overfuorlg~ R.eef from
wind and storms is greatest. In general, however, the impact of the pro-
ject can be expected to be re lative ly restricted to the area of Ga Hows
Bay. The sedimentary analysis revealed that most of the sediments with-
in the bay are of terre strial origin and are carried into the bay as runoff
from rain storms. Further, it is suggested that the blueish material in
the finer sediments originates from the cretaceous volcanic material
oo::!urring in the Christiansted area.
-8-
2.05 WATER RESOURCES. The Gallows Bay flood control ditch was apparently
constructed along the source of a stream bed. As recently as 1961 the
Praeger and Cavanaugh survey for the original harbor project showed
standing water in the stream bed (and on the site of the current harbor
warehouse facilities). There is little available contemporary informa-
tion on the groundwater resources of the region except for a report by
Robison (1972) who implies that there are insignificant groundwater re-
sources outside of the central portion of St. Croix.
2.06 POTABLE WATER RESOURCES. Potable water in the area is primarily
from the government distribution system and captured rainwater. Robison
(1972) implies that there are no significant groundwater resources in the
area. The current project should not have any impact on the water re-
sources of the area.
2.07 OCEANOGRAPHY. The oceanography of Christiansted harbor has been
investigated by Jacobsen (1951), Dong (1972), and Nichols, et. ale (1972)
with respect to the current patterns. These reports describeda counter-
clockwise current system whereby the wave and wind driven water moves
through the harbor and out the channe 1.
Jacobsen reported a clockwise
current on an incoming tide which was not found by Nichols, et. ale Dur-
ing the intervening years between the two studies, the harbor underwent
extensive dredging which increased the volume of the harbor by 14 percent
(Nichols, et. al., 1972). This change in volume may have accounted for
the differences in observed currents. The only available current informa-
tion for Gallows Bay and the eastern portion of Christiansted harbor comes
from Jacobsen (1951), who shows that the general flow in this portion is
clockwise on both tidal states and continues from the Altona lagoon area
until it joins the east flowing current from the western portion of the bay
at the channel between Protestant Cay and St. Croix~ Jacobsen does not
show current velocities. His effort, therefore, cannot be used to predict
transport of suspended fines from the dredging proposed by the present
project.
In an effort to predict sediment transport. we undertook, in the present
study, to determine current ve locity and direction in greater detail. The
methodology used is described in Appendix I, and the results of that effort
indicate that current flow through the Gallows Bay area is, as predicted,
a clockwise current system on both the incoming (Figure 4) and outgoing
tides (Figure 5). During incoming tidal conditions, the observed cur-
rents had a stronger souther ly component. Water entered the commer-
cial harbor through the cargo dock and proceeded in a clockwise direction.
-9-
FIGURE 4. Current direction during an incoming tide results in a clock":'
wise current system. The dashed line represents an inferred
current direction.
Protestant
Cay
Gall ows Bay
(
\/
T
o
100
. 200
Scale (in feet
--10-
FIGUHE 5. Current direction during falling tidal conditions in the Gallows
Bay area moves in a clockwise direction. The dotted lines are
from Nichols, et. ale (1972); the solid lines from drogue and
die measurementswere taken from May 19 to May 22, 1978,
and the dashed lines are inferred directions.
Protestant
Cay
I
/
/
11.
Gallows Bay I,
o
100
·200
-Scale {in feet
-11-
During outgoing tides there is a strong shift to the west as water begins
leaving the bay at the head of the commercial dock. The highest ve locity
was measured at this point (0. 1 m/ sec). Current ve locity to the east of
a line drawn between the cargo dock and St. Croix averaged 0.03 m/ sec
on both incoming tides (N=14) and outgoing tides (N=13). Outside of this
line the currents average O. 05 m/ sec average of both tides (N=14).
When a chart was prepared showing contour lines around areas of sim-
ilar current velocity (Figure 6), we found that there were three areas
of extremely low current (less than 0.02 m/ sec) where heavy deposition
of suspended fine sediments can be expected. Two of these areas (in the
head of the bay (B) and off the end of the cargo dock) are also exposed
periodically to heavy turbulence from prope llor wash originating with
commercial shipping in the Gallows Bay area. Diving observations of
these areas revealed Little resuspendable sediment. The third of these
areas (A in Figure 6) is outside the region of effect from shipping traffic
and contained significant amounts of sediment.
Currents in Gallows Bay travel in a clockwise direction. Observed cur-
rent velocities were beneath the threshold required to transport the fine
sediments out of the bay. We expect that occasional currents enter the
bay with sufficient velocity to suspend the fine sediments. Suspension
and transport of some of the fine sediments may occur associated with
turbulence re suIting from shipping and boat wake s. The impact from
sediment suspension will be concentrated within the area of Gallows Bay
and along the shore line towards Fort Christianvaern.
2.08 TIDES.
Tides in Christiansted harbor agree closely with the predictions
for Galveston, Texas (Nichols, et. al., 1972) except that the time of high
water is 9 hours and 17 minutes ear lier and the heights are lower than at
Galveston by a factor of 0.57. The maximum tidal range was from O. 7
feet to -0. 1 foot. The average tidal range during the measurements was
O. 7 feet.
2.09 WAVE IMPACT. The Gallows Bay area, due to its position in the east-
ern portion of the bay, is protected from all normal sea conditions. At-
lantic groundswells, which are an important factor in shoreline develop-
ment in the northern Virgin Islands, are more or less blocked by these
islands and are not significant factors in St. Croix. Long R.eef lies along
the seaward edge of Christiansted harbor and stops wave energy from
reaching the shore. The only potential source of wave damage is from
hurricane waves which are most like ly to occur between July 25 and Oct-
ober 25. The Corps of Engineers (1975) study estimates that a severe
Current Velocity (M/sec.)
-
-
-<0.02
~ - -- -
0.02-0.04
~
0.04-0.06
•........•. 0.06-0.08
>0.08
GALLO\-JS BAY
. .
\,
' . .
•••••••• -4
........
.. ,
........ -" ..
--. -.
....
.~
....... _ ... -
~
c· "
,.'
"
"
....
, : .
....
100
200
l-
u w
--::>
a a:
0...
FIGUR.E 6, The contour. lines enclose areas where similar current velocities were
measured during the present study. Areas of low velocity were observed
at points A, B, and D. Area D was observed near the end of a tidal cycle
and is possibly an artifact. Suspended fines generated by clam shell
dredging at site C are likely to be deposited at A and B but are likely
to be carried outside the harbor once they reach the acce lerating current
system that enters Gallows Bay.
-13-
hurricane, with an expected probability of one in a hundred years, will
raise tidal levels at Gallows Bay by five feet. This would permit a great-
er portion of storm driven wave energy to enter the harbor. There have
been 24 hurricanes which passed within a fifty mite radius of the Virgin
Islands since 1900 (Bowden, 1974).
2.10 MAR.INE WATER QUALITY. A summary of the Department of Conserva-
tion and Cultural Affairs water quality data from the Gallows Bay area
is listed in Table 1. It is apparent from the various literature sources
that the area has been continually stressed since at least the time when
the pond area was filled in. Removal of this pond eliminated a natural
"filterll for terrestrial sediments and created a situation whereby they
were carried directly into the Gallows Bay area. Jacobsen (1951) reported
that the waters in the area of the abbatoir were depressed in dissolved
oxygen and had significant numbers of fecal coliform bacteria. Indeed,
some of his sample s were unacceptab le by current minimum water quality
standards. Jacobsen reported that the waters of Gallows Bay away from
the abbatoir did not show any signs of po llution apart from increased tur-
bidity. Subsequent measurement of the waters had shown the increased
turbidity and suspended solids to be a permanent feature of the area.
Other parameters indicative of water quality perturbations have not in-
dicated that the area is under eutrophic stress to any greater degree than
much of Christiansted harbor. Water quality must certainly be highly
altered during times of flooding, however, as it is apparent that much
of Christiansted's 7.25 km2 watershed drains into Gallows Bay.
2. 11 LIVING RESOURCES. The terrestrial living resources are remnants
of the extensive shoreline mangrove and "Kasha" forests shown in the
1961 Praeger and Cavanaugh survey which preceeded the original Gallows
Bay project. At present there is a single remnant of the Kasha (Acacia
tortuosa) and nine surviving white mangroves (Laguncularia racemosa).
The other surviving trees are found within the project area and are listed
in Table II. The ground cover is made up of a variety of grasses and sea
purslane (Philoxerus vermicularis). The avifauna in the project area
is extremely sparse. We observed two pigeons (Columba sp. ) feeding
on the shoreline. Several frigate birds (Frigata magnificans) were ob-
served feeding on discarded fish that had washed up on the shore. Sev-
eral species of anolid lizards (Anolis sp. ) were also observed.
2.12 RARE AND ENDANGERED SPECIES. A single hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys
imbricata) was observed on two occasions within the commercial harbor.
The diet of the hawksbill includes both animal and vegetable food (Rebel,
1974). Among the animal components of the diet are oysters, barnacles,
sponges, ecotprocts and other fouling organisms which are common on
TABLE 1.
SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS IN THE AREA OF GALLOWS BAY,
ST. CROIX, U. S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
Parameter
Year
b
c
1951a
c
c
(units)
1971
1975(3)
1976(10)
1977(5 )
Temperature (oc)
25
28.7
26.9
24.5
Salinity (ppt)
35.7
35.6
36. 1
D. O. (mg/1)
5.2/
6.0
6.4
6.5
6.3
pH
8.2
8.4
8.2
Turbidity (FTU)
.30
1. 04
1.2
Secchi Depth (M)
<2
3. 1
2. 7
2.3
Fecal Col. (cells/100m)
92/0
1-64
1
18
31
Suspended Solids (mg/L)
5-10 mg/L
Sources:
a
Jacobsen (1951). Two stations: Near slaughter house / in Gallows Bay. Data collected in August 1951.
b
Nichols. et. a1. (1972). Data colle cted June to September 1971.
c
Data furnished by V.1. Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs. Mean values are given, sample
size in parenthesis.
I
.......
ff::..
I
-15-
the bulkhead and pilings of the commercial harbor, and we presume the
turtle may have been attracted to the harbor for feeding purposes.
The brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) may also utilize the Gallows
Bay area for feeding purposes, although none were observed. Despite
the fact that it is cited as endangered (U. S. Department of the Interior,
1974), the brown pelican is common throughout the Virgin Islands and
nests successfully on various offshore rocks and cays and remote coastal
areas.
The St. Croix ground lizard, Ameiva polops, which is on the Enpangered
Species lis~ is only found on Protestant Cay and Green Cay and therefore
will not be affected by the proposed harbor modifications.
2.13 MAHINE ECOLOGY. The distribution of the major benthic community
types is shown in Figure 7. The extremely heavy sedimentation caused
by terrestrial sediment input from runoff and continual resuspension of
these sediments by shipping traffic has severe ly limited biotic deve lop-
ment in the area. Indeed, attached algal growth is limited to the shaLLow-
er portions of the dredged basin and to the intertidcilflats. An attempt to
quantitatively sample the benthic community was abandoned when the first
7 quadrats landed on areas which could not be adequate ly coLLected. Sub-
sequently. the benthic community map shown in Figure 7 was developed
from a series of SCUBA and waded transects (shown in Figure 8).
The sublittoral community is roughly defined by the extent of the turning
basin. The dominant algal forms are a fine filamentous blue-green
(Schizothrix sp. ) and the Chlorophycean algae Bryopsis sp. and Cladophora
sp.
The latter two forms and non-attached detrital algae. which are extremely
abundant outside the area. may have been transported into the turning basin
from outside. They are concentrated in wash channels near the end of the
cargo dock. The ichthyofauna of the area is confined to areas where depos-
ition of debris has created habitat for juvenile fishes.
We observed tarpon
(megalops atlanticus) and mackeral (Scombroremorus sp. ) feeding on fry
(Anchoa sp. ).
Visibility was limited to a maximum of two meters during the SCUBA
transects, and we expect that the species list in Table II may omit a
number of the species present. The shallower water at the edge of the
turning basin permits greater light penetration, and there is a consequent
increase in the diversity of the subtidal she If. The most common form
was Gracilaria cylindrica and several occurrences of turtle grass (Thalassia
testudineum). Generally this "community" must be considered as a
-16-
TABLE II. Terrestrial vegetation in the project area was dominated by
a variety of grasses, Sea Purslane (Philoxerus vermicularis)
and the trees listed be low.
Common Name
Scientific Name
Abundance
Portia tree
Thespesia populnea
8 trees
Wild Cotton
Gossypium barbadense
2 trees
White Mangrove
Laguncu.laria racemosa
9 trees
Kasha,
Acacia tortuosa
1 bush
Gum Arabic
Acacia nilotica
4 bushes
Surinam Calliandra
Calliandra surinamensis
1 tree
-17-
Intertidal Shelf
tx"1l Subt idal Shelf
~
E4 Turning
100
200
SCALE IN FEET
6
42'
FIGURE 7.
Distribution of the three "community associations" within the
Gallows Bay area. There is a fourth association of species
found in and around the piers and bulkheads.
-'18-
''''''''''''''''-
GALLOI,)S BAY
o '
100
200
..
SCALE IN FEET
640 42'
FIGURE 8. Location of SCUBA and wading transects which were used to
gather the information for constructing Figure 7.
I-f
(/)
I-
u w
r::>
<:)
a:::
0...
-19-
transitional zone between the extreme ly impoverished turning basin and
the slightly richer intertidal flat. There are occasional patches of Halophila
baiUonis in the she If area. Halophila appears frequently in areas where
there is heavy siltation and/ or substrate instability. A small barracuda
(Sphyraena barracuda) was observed feeding on small fry (Anchoa sp. )
in this area. Many gobies and blennies were observed but not specifically
identified along the shelf edge and in the intertidal.
The intertidal region in Gallows Bay contains large areas of fine sediments
of probable terrestrial origin. Most of the benthic growth occurs on rocks
and debris that extend above the sediments. The intertidal zone has been
extended inland since there has been considerable shoreline erosion since
the original dredging. The intertidal contains a much greater diversity
of attached algae. Enteromorpha flexuosa, a green algae whic:h grows in
turbid waters and has a high phosphate metbolism (Becking and MacKay,
1956), is abundant. Its presence is indicative of possible eutrophic in-
fluences in the area. A variety of other algae are common.
The final biotic association in the are a is found on the pilings and bulkheads
of the commercial facilities. Table III indicates a similarity between this
and the intertidal community. Ectocarpus sp. is the dominant algal form
and is an inconspicuous element of the intertidal community. There is also
a conspicuous sponge and ectoproct fauna on the pilings. The area at the
base of the bulkheads and particularly the pilings is the site of the richest
icthyofauna in the area. A number of snappers were observed, among
them the grey snapper (Lutjanus griseus), schoolmaster (L. apodus), dog-
tooth (L. jocu) and virgin snapper (L. analis). Virgin snappers were a
considerable element of the catch orapproximately 15 recreational fisher-
men that used the pier over the weekend. The grapsid crab Sesarma ricordi
was common at the airwater interface on the pilings and bulkheads, and
the dominant fish was the tomtate (Haemulon aurolineatum).
2.14 CLIMATE AND WEATHER.. The Virgin Islands extend eastward from
Puerto R.ico directly in the be It of subtropical, easterly trade winds.
The climate is maritime tropical and is characterized by generally fair
weather, steady winds and slight but regular seasonal and diurnal ranges
of temperature.
The formation of the climate is a direct result of five important elements:
the geographic location of the islands; the small size of the islands; their
elongated narrow sha~;their steep hilly topography; and the situation of
the islands in an extensive warm water body. These five elements are
-20-
TABLE III. Fish. algae and molluscs found within the GaLLows Bay area.
He lative abundances are shown as Present but not Abundant (P),
Common (C) or Dominant (D).
Subtidal Turning
Fish
Intertidal Pilings
~shelf
Basin
Common Name Scientific name
Barracuda
Sphyraena barracuda
Tarpon
Megalops atlanticus
Sprat
Harengula clupeola
H. humeralis
Anchovy
Anchoa sp.
Squirre l fish
MyrIPristis jacobus
Mullet
Mugil curema
Mackeral Scombroremorus sp.
Schoolmaster
Lutjanus apodus
Grey snapper .!:.:. griseus
Dogtooth
L. jocu
Virgin snapper
L. analis
Yellowtail Ocyurus chrysurus
Tomtate
Haemulon aurolineatum
Blenniidae sp.
Porkfish
Anis6tr~mi1Svirginicus
Porgy Calamus sp.
Pufferfish Diodonholacanthus
Butterfly fish
Chaetodon capistratus
Beau Gregory Eupomacentrus leucostictus
Bicolor damse lfish
E .. partitus
Doctorfish Acanthurus chirurgus
A. coerulus
Molluscs
Cerithium sp.
Cymatian vespaceum2
Bulla occidentalis
C antharus tinctus
Natica canrena
Algae
Hhodophyceae
Ceramium sp.
Dasya cr011~m;na
C
C
P
P
P
C
P
P
C
P
C
D
C
C
P
C
C
C
C
C
P
C
C
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
D
P
C
P
P
P
P
-21-
Subtidal
Turning
TABLE III (cont. )
Intertidal Pilings
shelf
Basin
Gyninogongrus griffithsiae
D
D
Gyninogongrus sp.
P
HypIlea musciformis
C
P
Gradiaria. cylindrica
C
Grate 16upia filidna ..
C
C
D
Acanthaphora spicifera
C
C
Gala~allra squallda
P
P
SpYrldia filamentosa
P
Phaeophyceae
Dictyota d1v,:aricata
C
P
Ectocarpus sp.
D
P
P
PocockielJavariagata
C
Padina sanctae -crucis
P
Chlorophyceae
Halimeda incrassata
P
Bryopsis sp. 1
C
D
Bryopsis sp. 2
P
Ud:itea flabe llum
P
Enteromorpha flexuosa
C
P
Chaetomorpha graculis
C
Cladophora sp. 1
P
C
Cladophora sp. 2
C
D
Caulerpa mexicana
C
C
C
P
C. verticitlata
P
P
Cyanophyceae
Schizothrix
D
Spermatophyta
Halophilabainonis
P
only at ed
Thallassia testudineum
P
-22-
responsible for producing the particular types of precipitation, temper-
ature, winds, cloud cover, evaporation and humidify which, taken to-
gether, produce the climate.
Variations in temperature between the coolest and the warmest months
range from 5 to 7 degrees. The highest temperatures are in August and
the lowest in January or February. The temperature seldom drops be-
low 70 degrees or rises above 90 degrees.
Regularity in the direction of the trade winds is one of the most depend-
able weather phenomena in the islands. Almost without exception, the
trade winds blow from an easterly direction. The general range in wind
velocity is 5 to 15 miles per hour with daily variations. A velocity of
more than 15 miles per hour occurs more frequently in winter than in
other seasons. Leeward slopes are protected against the full force of
the trade winds, but the flow is strong to pass over the higher terrain
without diminishing in ve locity.
The islands are affected occasionally by tropical storms and hurricanes.
They lie outside the main paths of severe tropical disturbances except
those that occur from August through the first half of October. The storms
that deve lop over the South Atlantic east of the Antilles chain usually move
toward the north or northwest and pass north or south of the islands; rarely
do they pass directly over them. There is a risk of hurricane force winds
about once every eighteen years.
The steady flow of trade winds and the warm temperature result in high
evaporation rates. Open-pan water measurements taken on St. Croix
indicate rates (72.69') that exceed the average annual rainfall.
The average relative humidity varies from a high of 90 during the early
morning hours in October and November to a low of 63 in the early after-
noons of February and March.
2.15 RAINFALL. Climatological and meteorological records for the island of
St. Croix and specifically the Gallows Bay area extend back well into the
eighteenth century and have been summarized and interpreted in Stone
(1942), Bowden (1968), and Zube (1968).
Precipitation occurs primarily as short and limited, but frequent showers.
The showers are a direct result of orographic lifting over the islands'
steep hills. Variations in elevation, the form of the islands, their size,
and the prevailing easterlies cause different parts of the islands to have
-23-
varied annual amounts of fainfall, with the higher elevations receiving
greater amounts. St. Croix displays the effect of orographic lifting
and prevailing winds on rainfall more readily, with the island's northwest
corner receiving in excess of 50 inches per year, while the easterly por-
tions of the island get as little as 20 inches per year.
Monthly rainfall averages for the Christiansted and Gallows Bay area
based on all prior data have been calculated and mapped by Bowden (1968)
and are cited in Table IV. The annual average faUs between a low of
33 inches and a high of 47 inches with September, October, and November
being the wettest months. These averages can however be misleading as
localized storms and rainfall can and have produced precipitation leve Is
(at Fort Christianvaern) in excess of 14 inches within a 48 hour period,
as on 7 and 8 October of 1977, when major coastal flooding, erosion and
runoff problems were especially severe in the area east of Christiansted
including Gallows Bay and Altona Lagoon. The October, 1977 monthly
rainfall total at the Christiansted Fort rain gauge station was 19.08 inches
and the annual total for 1977 was 50. 78 inches, obviously an extremely
unusual circumstance occuring on the average of about once every fifteen
years since 1852.
2. 16 AIH Q.UALITY. According to published reports by the Government of the
Virgin Islands, Department of Conservation and Cultural Affairs, all nat-
ional ambient air standards are maintained on St. Croix, and the Gallows
Bay area, as a light industry commercial zone, has no serious air quality
problems.
Present roll-on/roll-off trailer truck traffic moving from dock to storage/
parking areas and nearby warehouses stirs up some ephemeral road dust
and produces engine exhaust fumes, each of which may increase slightly
as a consequence of incremental additional activity resulting from the
proposed improvement to the existing port facility. Within the general
area of the project, other non-project sources of continuing minor air
pollution are the AntiUes Gas facility, well to the south, and the St. Croix
Marine Deve lopment, bordering the Port Authority facility to the north.
No Significant increase in air pollution is anticipated from the construction
phase of the proposed project.
3.00 HELATIONSHIP OF THE PHOPOSED PHOJECT TO LAND USE PLANS.
The nature of the project is in keeping with the commercial nature of the
area. The area is zoned for commercial use, and the project is an
attempt to remedy and facilitate maintenance of the harbor area as we II
as to create additional operational bulkheading for unloading and storage
-24-
TABLE IV. Average Monthly Rainfall (in inches) for Gallows Bay, St.
Croix area and adjacent watershed.
January
2-3
February
1-2
March
1-2
April
2-3
May
3-4
June
3-4
July
3-4
August
3-4
September
4-5
October
4-6
November
4-6
December
. '3-4 .
totals
33 47
Average low annual total - 33 inches
Average high annual total -47 inches
From: Bowden. M. J •• Water Balance of a Dry Island, The Hydroclimatology
of SL Croix, VirginIslandsand Potential for Agricul-
tural and Urban GroWth. Dartmouth University. 1968.
-25-
for roll-on/roll-off shipping. The parking ,lot is nearly on the site desig-
nated for a projected warehouse in the 1961 Praeger and Cavanaugh survey.
Changes in shipping technology in the intervening years have led to the use
of parking lots and container cargo as warehouse s. Zoning of the area for
light industry and its current use as a commercial harbor are consistant
with the projected project. Currently the beach front area to the south of
the project site is used by local residents as a bathing and picnic area and
by fishermen and small boat owners as a mooring area. None; of these use
patterns will be seriously impacted by the project.
A detailed planning study carried out by Madigan and Praeger in 1974.
regarding a port facility development for St. Croix. recommended various
improvements at the project site in Gallows Bay which are compatible
with the proposed modifications to the existing Gallows Bay port facility.
In effect. the eventual construction of a major heavy cargo facility on the
south coast of St. Croix as PJwposed in Madigan and Praeger's report
and currently under discussion by the Port Authority would enable the
modified Gallows Bay area to more readily be converted to small boat
recreational use. This ultimate possibility is also compatible with plans
currently being proposed by the Virgin Islands Planning Office (Coastal
Zone Management Program) for a small recreational/fishing boat dock/
pier and possibly a boat launching ramp in the southern portion of Gallows
Bay, heavily used by local small boats as mentioned above.
4.00 PROBABLE IMPACT OF THE PROJECT.
4.01 TOPOGRAPHIC IMPACT. Some topographic changes will result from the
site deve lopment as the entire area of the project will be raised to three
feet above mean low water including a nine inch concrete pad.
4. 02 DRAINAGE. Diversion of the flood control canal through ninety degrees
will have some slight effect on drainage in the area, but the canal has been
demonstrated to be ineffective during heavy rains. The entire Gallows
Bay area is a major flood plain and the present pattern of flooding under
conditions of heavy rainfall probab ly commenced when the Little Pond was
filled in. Clogging of the canal will be prevented through
installation
of steel access grating and regular clearing. The project will not affect
groundwater in the area since the available information indicates that
there is no fgttoundwa.fer in the vicinity.
-26-
4.03 IMPACT ON THE MAHINE ENVIHONMENT. The project will alter the
Gallows Bay seabed configuration only insofar as to restore the original
dredged depth which has been progressive ly lost as a result of terriginous
sediment deposition. Currents in the area are low and should not affect
any of the proposed structures. The major scouring and erosive forces
in the area appear to stem from terrestrially originating flooding and
boat wakes from the substantial fishing community in the area. Another
scouring force from larger shipping in the turning basin appears to mainly
affect the m,icl.' portions of the basin and lead to deposition at the pheriphery
of the basin.
4.04 EHOSION. Shoreline stability in the area is a problem. The original
Corps of Engineers study (described in a December 29, 1948, letter from
the Secretary of the Army to the Congress of the United States) did not
anticipate the affect of the dredged turning basin as a potential energy
sump for the shoreline sand and sediments. Consequently, there has
been considerable shoreline erosion. This process will not be adversely
effected by the current project except that terrestrial sediments and
debris will be diverted from the head of Gallows Bay (where they have
created a considerable delta and filled in the turning basin) to the more
southerly portion of the bay. It is possible that the project may redirect
these sediments in such a way as to furnish material for a reconsolidation
of the shoreline. It is more likely that the terrigeneous material will
simply be put into the turning basin at a different point.
4.05 FR.ESHvWA'llBRIRESOURGEB. "The fresh water resources of the area will
not be affected. The original circulation pattern apparently resulted in
standing water in what is now the warehouse area of the commercial fac-
ility. The gut that is now represented by the flood control ditch was shown
on eighteenth century charts of the area as a channe 1 linking the sea to a
small lagoon behind the southeast corner of the bay and in nineteenth cen-
tury maps as a stream that originated in the mountains near Lang Observ-
atory. Currently it is generally dry. There are no suspected ground-
water resources. A Public Works alternate sewage pumping station offers
a greater threat of groundwater contamination than the present project.
4.06 POTABLE WATEH. The project will have no impact on localized potable
water supplies as all local water is either caught in cisterns\.or carried
in the public water distribution system.
4.07 IMPACT ON EXISTING WATEHWAYS. The project represents maintenance
of an existing waterway. Original approval of the 16 foot commercial har-
bor facility carried with:!it the assumption that the harbor would either be
stable or be permitted reasonable maintenance. The project increases
the efficiency of the Gallows Bay area, thereby slightly reducing pressures
for alternative deve lopment.
-27-
4.08 WATER TURBIDITY AND SEDIMENTATION. Increased turbidity can be
expected during the course of the project. The currents in the area are
slight and much of the suspended sediment can be expected to settle in
the area of the turning basin itse If. The fine sediments that are suspended
during dredging operations and later resuspended as a result of shipping
will either re settle in the area or will enter a regime of acce lerating cur-
rent velocities which will carry them out of the harbor mouth. We do not
expect there to be any areas within Christiansted harbor where there will
be secondary deposition of sediments. The current pattern observed
from the present study and Nichols, et. ale (1972) d:es1:trJt indicate that any
of the sediments will be carried into the southern or western portions of
the bay. A southern element of the current system during rising tidal
conditions was observed by Jacobsen (1951) but has not been subsequently
observed. The harbor volume has increased by 14 percent as a result
of dredging between 1951 and 1972 which may have qualitatively changed
the circulation pattern. If this southern element of the current persists,
then the sediment plume may be carried in the direction of the town of
Christiansted. Deposition during periods of slack tides may be expected
to occur along the plume path.
4.09 TERRESTRIAL VEGETATION. The project will eliminate the surviving
coverage along the shoreline of small scrub and trees. No avifaunal use
of this habitat was observed during the study period. The only use ob-
served of the area by birds was associated with discarded fish. The pro-
ject should not significantly alter a suspected use by brown pe licans which
vvere not observed during the study period.
4. 10 ENDANGERED SPECIES. The single occurrence of a hawksbill turtle in
an area of such heavy use by commercial shipping and fishing boats is
indeed remarkab leo
Since benthic cover by algae is extreme ly sparse,
it is possible that the turtle's activities involved feeding on the fouling
organisms on the pilings and bulkheads. The project will create addition-
al bulkheading (therefore food). It is unlikely that the turtle was in the
harbor for reproductive purposes since tl::ere is no useable shore line at
present for egg laying and Rainey (1976) does not record any nesting act-
ivities within Christiansted harbor during recent history. A more likely
explanation for the occurrence of the turtles would be that it was an ir-
regular visitor to the Gallows Bay area. The project would not affect
any attractive (to the turtle) aspects re levant to the habitat.
The other federally endangered species which we suspect to be an occas-
ional visitor to the Gallows Bay area is the brown pe lican. A Ithough we
did not observe pelicans in the area, we suspect that they feed on bait
-28-
fish at times. The project should not permanently cause any changes in
food abundance for brown belicans in Gallows Bay.
4.11 ATMOSPHERIC IMPACT. We cannot foresee the project affecting atmos-
pheric phenomena on any significant scale. However, modification of the
localized microclimate may result. The parking lot for the container
cargo will reflect and/ or absorb heat during the day and radiate it at night.
Because of the open coastal location and almost constant breezes, thermal
changes resulting from the development should not seriously affect local
mete oro logical conditions.
4. 12 IMPACT ON HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES. There
are no surviving sites in the project area. The old abattoir. and the ruins
of the Mount Welcome windmill along the eastern shore were demolished
in the 1960's to make way for the new port facilities. Pottery, china and
bottle fragments, some dating from the eighteenth and nineteenth century,
can be found along the shoreline immediately to the west of the project
area, but as they are clearly exogenous rather than autochthonous, we do
not feel that they represent a significant historical/archaeological resource.
As the area to be filled in consists of fill previously taken from the harbor,
no marine archaeological site is imperiled by the project.
4. 13 VISUAL IMPACT. Visually, the project will modify the area only insofar
as it will extend the available area of parking. The loss of remaining fol-
iage will reduce the attractiveness of the area somewhat. The project
will replace the present delta of terrestrial debris and sediments with
a commercial facility. From the view of the commercial interests, the
project will improve the visual aspects of the area by replacing a poorly
utilized area, filled with debris, by one which is commercially useful
and efficient.
4. 14 RECREATIONAL USE. Use of the beachfront area to the southwest of
the project by bathers, picnickers and boaters will not be seriously im-
pacted by the project. Existing usable beach area will not be diminished,
and only a small reduction in the mooring area will result. The project
area is not being utilized as a swimming, picnicking or mooring area.
4. 15 POSITIVE AND AM~LIORATIVE EFFECTS. Positive and arne liorative
effects center around increasing the efficiency of the are a for its desig-
nated purpose - - commercial shipping. They inc lude increased bulkhead
for loading and unloading, increased storage for container cargo, and
maintenance dredging to the design depth in that portion of the bay. Other
possible ameliorative effects may result from the diversion of the flood
-29-
control waterway in that the terrestrial sediments may furnish material
for and retard the ongoing shoreline erosion process. By increasing the
efficiency of the harbor area, the project will enable the continuance of
traditional West Indian trade connections with other islands in the Lesser
Antilles, the island of St. Croix may achieve better goods and services,
and there will be a slight reduction in efforts to deve lop other sites for
commercial harbors.
5. 00 POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED. There
will be some loss of shoreline vegetation. Fine sediments will be suspended
and eventually carried out the harbor mouth. Increased harbor facilities
may lead to increased usage and therefore increased truck traffic in the
area. There will be increased noise from the dredging operations and
from increased shipping activity. A slight reduction in the mooring area
for fishing boats may occur. During the project there may be some slight
hydrogen sulfide smell from dredged sediments.
6.00 ALTERNATIVES TO 'IDHE PRDPOSED ACTION. A no action alternative
is the only one explored. This is not acceptable since the status quo is
resulting in a gradual shallowing of the head of the harbor area and,
therefore, reduction in the ability of the commercial harbor to function
efficiently in meeting the shipping needs of the is land.
No action also
increases the pressure for development of alternative harbor facilities
since the popuLation of St. Croix is faced with a·near absolute dependence
upon imported goods and supplies.
7.00 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S
ENVIRONMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY.
The project results from the absolute requirement to import goods,
through shipping, to meet the needs of the people of St. Croix. Since
this is simply a maintenance modification of an existing facility, it is
consistant with the long term needs and requirements of the island.
Indeed, since the need for warehousing facilities was planned 17 years
ago, there has been ample time to critically analyze the necessity for
the structure. If proposed deve lopment of port facilities on the sbuth
shore of St. Croix takes place, then the project will enhance the projected
use of Gallows Bay as a recreational boating facility.
-30-
8. 00 ill.REVERSIBLE OR ill.RETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
WHICH WOULD RESULT FROM PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION. The
project will create an area of concrete parking for roll-on/roll-off ship-
ping where an area of terrigenous sedimentation, heavily disturbed inter-
tidal, accumulated fine sediments currently exists. The bulkhead, fill
and concrete parking area will replace an area which bears little relation-
ship to the area before the original dredging project. The use of the fac-
ility may increase the volume of traffic, but the zoning within the area
indicates that such changes have been planned for. The decimation of the
vegetation will signal the completion of the shore line changes started
with the original pfpject initiation.
8.01 NATURAL RESOURCES. No local natural resources will be irreplace-
ably consumed. The sediments to be dredged are primarily terrestrial
in origin and overlie the dredged bottom so that no truly natural commun-
ities are being destroyed. Human resources, such as labor and finances,
will be irretrievably spent but in exchange for resources and hopefully
impr0vement of logistical operations within the area.
-31-
APPENDIX I
CURRENTS IN GALLOWS BAY
INTRODUC TION
The currents in the area of Gallows Bay were described in 1951 by Jacobsen
as part of a general study of Virgin Islands harbors with respect to sew-
age disposal. His findings describe the flow in GaLlows Bay as a clock-
wise current system which proceeds west from the bay until it joined the
prevailing current system of Christiansted harbor. This greater system
was described by Jacobsen as being a clockwise system during incoming
tides and counterclockwise during outgoing tides. The next study of
Christiansted's currents was completed in 1972 by Nichols, et. al. Nichols
did not find the clockwise incoming tide current system reportedby Jacobsen
but carried out extensive studies and reported current speeds throughout
much of the bay. He may have accounted for the absence of the clockwise
current system as he report ed that in the intervening years dredging act-
ivities had increased the volume of the harbor by around 14 percent. He
did not study the currents of GaLlows Bay. The absence of contemporary
information on the velocity of water currents in GaLlows Bay led to the
present study since the suspension of fine sediments from the dredging
operations and their subsequent resettlement can be expected to have the
greatest environmental significance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Current was measured throughout Gallows Bay and the waters to the west
of the commercial harbor through the use of current drogues and dye.
The drogues were set to travel at 1m depth. Nichols found that current
was greatest near the surface, and since we are concerned with how far
the sediments may be carried, we decided to measure near-surface cur-
rents. We also released fluoroscene dye from fixed stations along the
piers and from anchored buoys offshore. When there was a clearly defined
edge to the dye distribution, we measured velocity; otherwise dye markers
were used as an indication of direction. At each measurement, we loc-
ated the boat at the position of the drogue or dye marker and recorded
the direction to fixed landmarks on shore with a handbearing compass.,
When the results were plotted, the distances trave led and times were
used to calculate the current ve locity and distance.
RESULTS
The results of this study are shown in Appendix I, Figures 1, 2, 3, 4,
and 5. They indicate that the currents in the bay flow in a clockwise
direction during both incoming and outgoing tides. The currents within
-32-
the bay averaged O. 03 m/ sec (average of aU 27 measurements and 0.05
m/ sec outside of the commercial harbor). When a chart was prepared
showing contour lines around areas of similar current velocity (Figure 3),
it indicated that there were three areas of extremely low current (less
than 0.02 m/ sec) where heavy deposition of suspended fine sediments is
to be expected. Two of these areas (in the head of the bay and off the end
of the cargo dock) are exposed to heavy turbulence from prope llor wash
originating with commercial shipping in Gallows Bay. Diving observa-
tions of these areas revealed little resuspendable sediment. The third
of these areas is outside the region of effect from shipping traffic and
contained significant amounts of sediment.
The current is affected by tidal variation and by wind driven water input
across the reef. The character of the tide at Christiansted is like that
at Galveston, Texas. except that the time of high water is 9 hours and 17
minutes earlier and heights are lower than at Galveston by a factor of
0.57. This similarity has been verified by Nichols, et. al. (1972). The
average tidal flow in the study period was O. 7 feet. Winds during the
study period ranged from 15 to 25 knots.
CO~LUSION
Currents in Gallows Bay travel in a clockwise direction at very low vel-
ocities. Much of the suspended sediment from"i1he project will remain in
the area of the bay itself until gradual resuspension by boating and ship-
ping traffic carries it from the bay. Those sediments which are carried
from the bay will be carried into increasing current ve locitie s and will
probably be transported out of the harbor before settling. The impact
from sediment suspension will be concentrated within the area of Gallows
Bay and along the shoreline towards Fort Christianvaern.
If areas of similar current ve locity are enc losed by contour line s (Figure 5).
the results can be used to predict the disposition of the suspended fine s.
The project is being undertaken in an area of minimum velocity. Velocity
increases slightly to the south of the project area, and there are depos-
itional (areas of lowered current ve locity) off the end of the cargo dock
and along the shoreline towards Fort Christianvaern. The low velocity
area at point C may be a result of a series of measurements which were
taken late in the tidal cycle when the tide was slackening. The deposition-
al basin at the end of the cargo dock is also an area where there is much
turbulence and resuspension of sediments from large vesse 1 prop wash.
Diving observations support the prediction that sediment is not trapped
here.
-33-
APPENDIX I, Figure 1. Current direction during an incoming tide results
in a clockwise current system.
Protestant
Cay
Gallows Bay
( i
D
100
200
.....
MiitE
It¥t.{i#f¥M¥¥Bf¥i¥ti?iRiUBii ....
Scale (in feet
-34-
o~ .
.
GALLm·}S BAY
~
I
64 42'
o -
100
200
'w
SCALE iN FEET
I-<
(/')
f-
U w
~
o
IX
0...
APPENDIX I, Figure 2. Drogue and dye paths on incoming tides during
the study period. Ve locity in (m/ sec) is shown,
when calculated, at the mid point of the interval.
-35-
APPENDIX I, Figure 3. Current direction during falling tidal conditions
in the Ga Hows Bay area move S in a clockwise
direction. The dotted lines are from Nichols,
et. at. (1972); the solid tines are from drogue
anddye measurements taken from May 19 to
May 22, 1978, and the dashed tines are inferred
directions.
Protestant
Cay
/
I
/
/t
Gallows Bay I,
()
.
/.::"
100
200
-Sea 1 e '( i nfeet
-36-
GALLOHS BAY
"'/
o -
•
64 42'
100
200
SCALE IN FEET
l-
t..)
W
'J
o
0::
c...
APPENDIX I, Figure 4. Drogue and dye paths on-outgoing tides during the
study period. Ve Locity (in m/sec) is shown, when
caLcuLated. at the mid point of the interval.
Current Velocity (M/sec.)
-
-
-<0.02
- -
-..;. -
0.02-0 .04
~
0.04-0.06
.. ·· ... ·.·u 0.06-0.08
>0.08
GALLDl'·JS BAY
· · · · ·
, .
....
....
-37-
......... , ....
••••
It
.'
.'
"!',
,.- •••••
..
.'",
'" I.
"..
to
' ........ ..
....
.
,-
64 42'
o'
"
"
.'
.. '
: .
,.'
0"
",
100
20Q
SCALE IN FEET
APPENDIX I. Figure 5, The contour lines enclose areas where similar
current velocities were ffi'eal81l1ned during the present study. Areas of low
l-
t..)
w
~
o n::
CL
ve locity were observed at 13eiri1s A;Bj ""ahd D. Area D was observed near
the end of a tidal cycle and is possibly an artifact. Suspended fines generated
by clam shell dredging at site C are likely to be deposited at A and B, but are
likely to be carried outside the harbor once they reach the accelerating current
-38-
APPENDIX II.
SEDIMENTS OF GALWWS BAY
by
Dennis K. Hubbard, Ph. D.
West Indies Laboratory
Fairleigh Dickinson University
St. Croix, U. S. Virgin Is lands
-39-
TECHNIQUES
A total of 13 surface and near-surface sediment samples were
taken in the Gallows Bay project area.
The location of each core
is given in Figure 1.
Samples were taken in two ways.
Surface
samples were taken with a 5 cm X 20 cm core tube.
Where preliminary
probings of the bottom revealed lenses of varying materials, a longer
(40+ cm) core was taken.
The core was divided visually into repre-
sentative sections and samples were extracted from each section of
core.
Twelve of the samples were analyzed to determine the graphic
mean and inclusive standard deviation of Folk (1974).
Samples were
first wet seived through 3.0~(0.125 mm), 4.09 (0.0625 mm) and 4.5¢
(0.044 mm) screens to determine the amount of fine sand and mud
contained in the sample.
These portions of the sample were then
dried and weighed.
This preliminary wet seiving step was added to
the analysis to prevent caking of the rest of the sample upon over
drying.
Without this step, the coarser grains can form aggregates,
bound by the finer grains.
If this occurs, any further analysis
is invalid.
The rest of the sample was dried at 110
0 F in an oven to remove
water from the sample.
Each sample was then seived at 1/2 ~ intervals
between -l~ (2.00 mm) and 3.09> (0.125 mm).
The results of the> 31
and <:. 3¢ analyses were combined for each sample, and the relative
percentages of the various grain sizes in each sample were computed.
Cumulative frequency curves (Figs. 2-13) were constructed and used
-40-
APPENDIX II, Figure 1. Base map showing sample locations. Map is
not to scale. See Appendix II, Table III for
further information.
'.
'.
. .
,
, .
'.
to-o
CD
o
".'.
"
•
I
'. · .
,
o· · .' .
, .
· .
· .
· ,. · .
~------------------------~ ..
, .
· "
L-____________________________
~. •
an •
(Q
o
, .
, ,
I •
t'
I • ·
, .
,'.
· . ·
,
" .
~------------------~ "
~
, - -
... ... OQ
,
.....
J
I
I
~ d
, .....
,
, .
..
,... ..
~ .... '. .
...
)- ".
d
'
2 ::'
~
o ·
a..
' ..
" · .
"
, .
;-...
p .,
-I)
(1\
"
-r
"""to o
rS"
f:r
fir
II
tJ,.)
"Q.
APPENDIX II, Figure 2. Cumulative frequency curves for GaUows Bay samples.
99.99
99.9 99.8
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
tffi#t£-Hli+i-++[-~ffi±m
; : ~~
i
-iI_L_,~LL1="1T -
L
0
, I
~f~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~
F
' ,
-L:
; if-
I'
o
t-l
i
I L.l+h
: ~ I i
Ii
I,
_,
-1-.;_L-1+
~"--l_~...;+i
~Jc;r~~
I'
,
I ~
!i--
Ii!
L!....l
-rl-r I I ~-h-!
-~I!TTl ,!,
\ Iii
l-
I I
i: III: IlilUI
LJ
i
I
I 1
,
-i--i
I'
, ,
10
5
2
0.5
0.2
0.1 0.05
0.01
:\i:
I
Ii
!'j
lit I
\&.l'-J
-t-~_L I' ,I
1-\ !
TTITTJ1TI+H
! Iii
,
W,
'I
VI
_'-L....
I'
tr
'I
Ull
II
, ,
iT
prcn
,!
, IT'
, H*'
--,
t
I
I ~:
--+-rr 11'
!
!
!
i i
+
i
i j
i
"1 , ,
! i
I
! I'
T1JJ m
m
I,
t+FH
Ii' L.
-j-tp::P.Lf1ii
t
i
I!
i-ri-+-~-J.
! I
I
I
I
r--t+HlT~-T I
1111
...L.....ll-L...LLL'
I
"
II
i,
=l : U+n,
I
1-; !- - I [ j ~
I
-+-1+t -Ii
-::::tl-
i II
I
!++~dJTI..::---j--"
J.:~r.'I'i'.
I ,
1
-+-H ! r ! ; , !
1
I
ii-ttrn
! I
!-l
=t:::t:::::!::ttl ill H--f=i:::Yltt -i : ;.L ~
i'· -H+i++' H+tl--H
, +H+H- -i-+-+tb-++H --+---! _
.. 1
I
'L~_-H=FH+l-lll +'!"i L
, ii,
I
1
~
.
I T; i ;
!
I
I
I I ,i-t
i
-
rTT
I __ !_
jll
hi
Til i
:lL'
!
"
iii
'HI
I
,
ft
I
+++'"
'I'll
I
--+j-HJt~-:~f-+':-~ __ i~f-J-J-l!-_~~_..::.~::::t::tc-:::+::l1t±i~_-r-:r:r:-~-il-IF' -1=t~Jii.F~~q-~-a-HJ+ll!+ '-~L~ rr:r-' -
I.
I' --"
f-1F+t
, 1''--'--
_L - :-;- -- ... -p+:;=~ ---- - __ t_LLJ_ J"':"':',
'-w-
.;-+-_
,~I n
I ~- , 1";';-1-. I;;:,~rr; ilH
j - - -i-ll'
"-J '
I--r--:-
I '
I.
,
I
"
'
I
,
...-"" .-....J
,I I
I _~}-.:::
,
-
I
. .
~
:
I I I !
r--'--']li .;-+''::::: ::=t=; ~r-' '-th::"'- ·=-1
:~- ,::-r=~=1-~ ~·,:tibIL~=f~f:::;-~-~ ~-:Tf-' -+-:-~t~:ttt: td+ -
--"i= ..::jr--.
+_Hi
; -: L+ - - .--,- T H --'
~ ,- -. ~-r-'-,' --1_
-':Err
1.=~ _-<-1... _w -'--
.-j--~! L.+ '.L
,-I -
H.
'li.l'=-,-- .-
-i- fl+j
t-:::::t=t:::::h:: .-..j- --i-C t-t- '" - -1-
--
--.~ '- .. --- .-,
----.!--- _.J :.J._'
,'+- L] .1
i It-i~
.
-- -, -I·..L
...I-
-'--!i+-4-+-+-+-,f---I
1-,
....
'--'- f-L-._...L.-..:_ I
"
+
r
I
I I
I ~~T I
! ,
!
! t
c=.=F ----I y r:::=t::: =--r-:::- -1-: - -. ~: ; e-=-=:--=-;~J::-- ~.:- !: ;'~J'-f -I:·;:::n=::~' :.~-·ttl:-Fl=fh.j I~j li-U-I
~f
+-H-
t,
I,
f--,---
1 i- . -, i---+- :.;9r-
L -r-l
~T' ' --;---;-.. ]'--; ~ ---!" - I-tl
-.,
l~ , ~ 'll:EI+' : H.-Ptl·- T +-~-r -
+''-1::-+ +.
,--+ H- :t'
-'1--;-- ."
-
--1-, - •. i -r,--
--~"--, - - c .. _~L: __ :.:.
Ii' ,.
'_C
_~ "
,..'
•
l.l ~ -r 1..J-i- l
-, . ..j. ,,+-1.
'-----'_-'-~l_
-L
t
'! I I: !!
r-:--;~:;......J-J....Ll.i.J....L
j
I L. 1-..1> ... ' l..-Ll
I
I
r
I
I
I
'.
:
0.01
0.05 0.1
0.2
0.5
1
2
5
10
20
30
40
50
6{)
70
1)0
90
95
98
99
99.8 99.9
99.99
Note that the vertical dimension is a probability pl~uWl~ 0/_.
I
f-I:>.
~
<.P
~
~
-t>
F'
o
-42-
Cumulative frequency curves for Gallows Bay samples. Note that the vertical dimension is a probability plot.
99.99
1 -
':0
-
'S..N
uJ
..t..
99.9 99.8
I,
Ii
-, -,-I i iii
+H
I (:...l .,
I,
I
! II
~
l..L(J
I! 'I
t lj
': I!
" 'i'
~ 1
, , Il
L..l
~,~,.
tlli
! I :"1
H-r-rrtr
11
99
98
95
1 :
I' f
~~ -j -
I r
~
I! i
j iii
, ,
, ,
90
.Ji
IT
"
80
III
70
60
50
40
30
I----t:+:c '
1,1
;~~' ,
I
Ii
:
!
I--
J:
I
~-" --,-
: Ii:
: ! w ,
I Ii
I
, I I U-1 ! ' ,
r-r;-r : --riI
~t
; i
, ,
11
n
Xd+~+
nfi$
I:::±3:1B!SE±l:tt=i::±:1:Et±ItiH.1±ffi1:±±±tJj:tt±tll±ill-rrr
' "
0.2
0.5
5
10
20
30
40
50
;;0
,M.:..,
1 I
+-1
20
t1
10
5
95
2
0.5
0.2
0.1 0.05
1 I
99.S 99.9
1-1
1-1
..
fIj
.... -
(J'q
~
fi
(j)
fl::..
99.99
lI>
p
3
""\')
iO
o
?l>
~
I
fl::..
(J.;)
I
Cumulative frequency curves fo·r Gallows Bay samples. Note that the vertical dimension is a probability plot.
99.99
99.9 99.8
99
98
95
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
0.5
0.2
0.1 0.05
0.01
o
-
~N
UI
--t.
i i!
-Ii I
II'
I: '
i I ij
~
S ..
j!
j I"
, ~It:tii
!
1!1'
m
,m
:i
i
jill
I,
II
! I i
t±b
'U
II
[j
"
I
i111
To
R==tH#
. I
.lJJ.'
H-+.-
!ll~
,
I;
Hn"
,
,~
j"" --L~
I I!! Ii
,j I
I
I
j)
rr~ I
~
I I
i
! I
~:
I: r
, I
: I
I
!il=Fl-l+
! I"i--t- , .
1
1- i
N
I
I
II
TTTTrnl
i ill
mTTTi
tJ
iii
In
---"
'I it
II
'1
III
II
III
'TTlim
LL!
-i-.I-l-l-H
; ~~-++H~~
I rl
Ii
I!
I I
I I
,
I
1-'-'-1
! II
8fltt
II
i I
rn
"
,'i'
f--1
i'
rtn
I I
t± --H-+-'fuj-,-J+l--i
=8+ -+t;±EJ" I:--t+-r
ii' ,
L
-w~
t
,
I
;: i '
'
r++-~ -i=:[
i 'll'
i
1
I
I
' , ' it II : . II
~.
_L
u
I-
.1..-+ __ .Jl,.l.J. -+ --LJ.~-t-m-.
,
_11 -t' !--l
.-+--!.~++ -+-
H++ll
1 Ii
-_-i---'jJ+c_..L -1---1 .. l-Li-':'-H--i-t
TT
'i,
1+ tti+-i
-t+-
I--j
~--
~---:- H IT--:
: l-"l-++r-t --r-rri-
i
!
i
. i
! j
:
I
I -I
'-tTY .. ~ It-
I I
U! I
I'
I
,H+'t
Ii i
'i
f4 Ii
Wi
II
,
I
~2=i'
----'-l-;
I
"
"
., "I Ii I '
.
~m '
r---
11: Itr:-, . -:-r- '"'"7
. iiI'
-: 2 - _:..
c---;- -+-t j -
-l--l--L'
-r-, 1 1 f-r-~ -rtt,f-::i:: 'i
; ','
t.:tL~
I i
- .
t
1
\"
I
T ni1
.-+-
, II
I
_iLL
i"
'~II"
I
H-
'1\
n'l
- ~
~
.... ,-----1-
1~
+-.1
t
TrT, - '" r-;-J--L., ·Hi+-·J
-
,
.
r;-·
- -
.
:.- 'j-j-i-j-fT
I---------h-------,-----,--,-Li..L. - +L_
:P-L..L:-++i-i~_!_ .1.:+.- ± _
--1--+_ I,I#JI:
--+-".4'~111 I
'--
_
1.1 ; ;
j '
I Ii r : : I!
I f f
+-r=t '
+t- I J I !. j'+
I
I
I
I i I:
----' . - 1-', --1' -FF ---
~-~--l-: -t=~-- ~~-~= _L_U.
i~;m-t.-+H.-1- ~ .. '-$--~-- ;- %.Lf
H-i
;
. ri.ii.--l
--- .'---
1 -
--:
!JF~' ----t· - -'----
'-rl-: .... ;..'-
T
!-i"t~
-j-.
-
L ff-
:--1-+11
. rr--t-
-- -, -
i .... " ----
.- -i
-
-- .--, =:r=t .. -
i-!--!-t-;-'-;I-·---f::t - -
,
-
+-
-I-
Tm
___ 1-
~
--r-
' .. --~.-." i'-~--
-~
-;
-
-r-- -
1-
r- ~-7-~-: l-t-t
._\ ·t-tl 1 -t-r"1 -
':.
TT I
I
I
H+tl
0.01
0,1)5
0.1
0.2
0.5
2
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
95
98
99
99.8 99.9
99.99
r/~_ o/.
b>
"d
"d
I:J:j
Z
d
I-i
~
I-i
I-i
"
f:rj .-.
()'q
~
~
(])
01
V>
p
l' ... ;0
"U ,
IJ'
P
)
fl::>-
fl::>-
)
Cumulative frequency curves for Gallows Bay samples. Note that the vertical dimension is a probability plot.
99.99
99.9 99.8
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
, -
~··N
{J.\
....t.
-t+tt
~~rj
4+1
T-j-
~l. i.l
! 1"1
Hn
r-I .iLi i
m±l::IILIIII oTI I
II'
I
r--:--i!"
II
I I
t;.+i
LL~ -Tl ITlil! I
II I
i
I
ill I
nrm
rn
jJ
,
I
, I
I ttl
'I
r+tf
TTl
,-; i i
t"i""1-:-tT1
i :i
II
+-WJ
j I i,
i
i rH
1 !
=11 i a.
IUj
I
--t
:
1,1!--t
: ,in
-~-~
,-++H
, I
H
III
i ~-i.
I
..L! I I II I
,
IT
i
I
II
w
-+
II
riljH~~-1=+++ ==f:=+=±±E±EfffiE
I 11
I TTIT·I 11
ITTI Tl
, I
++1-'-
--+--+-i-t-tili
-"t--i-+ -Lt+f
,r -Lti-l
--+.
I I
,
I
,_u::.t -: +1.1_ W'
f·FFff::
1
T-iTt1 -r'
, I
+".LU :-+-1+111 T
___ ~
... I
I -r-i-'-:-TI
Itt
-:--il ,
' +-n- .. :-, 1-i-rfT', I
, TI'
rn
I
T
-=t-..... ;:::~ .. : .'.r± ~ '-1-
.! _i_
I
.. ; +-H- ~t.-f :
" -g-H++ '1'
T R±Hq-n-++TITf-H-+T+' -+'+-+im
l++
---.L-L 'y. ",r --l--+-t 'h
e
-!
.f-, -+ -'!
-1 +.:1 t :iFj::r~ r ~ l::itrrTT
I'
1m
I
:.
I
_ .. _,""
!
,. ~
i,!
,~
I; I:
'I
! I !I'
I
I,
I I I:
I
I I
'i
_!_:.=.r:·I·~~;-·';----;.J-
'T··~~'·h--'t l=-=q:..H- '. i-·i·~;.~i tti:t~jJ:.;:-Mj± H- t-+tfl'W+:1+
H}ll'
"",. : .,.,,, ,--
f-++., '.,-. -' ··-.,--+-H.i- H.!f +1- i_ ,-+ - Ii" rt-rrr
.
. =t:
,Ir'.j ,
'-'- :--.
::±!-n:··f
--+
'
.1...
TT
- li- -r-Irlti
"
0. __
0.05 0.1
0.2
0.5
2
5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
.", __ II
D/
T"i
90
5
95
-...
2
II
tITPtt
+-~1
-r-t
0.5
0.2
0.1 0.05
I'
L-L-t.ftt+-
Ll-l-++ti
tttt
1lJ
1U
I
til
l=f=-I:i .1
_
fm-l I I I
, ~f-'l!-:
98
99
0.01
:P
~
~
l::r:j
Z
tI
~
1-1
1-1
"
f:rj
1-'-
(J'q
~
~
C'D
CT.l
v>
9
t
h:l
I
...z:.
99.99
I
H::>.
CJ1
99.99
-
-
~r-..,
~
....t,
Cumulative frequency curves fo·r Gallows Bay samples.
99.9 99.8
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
I
I
-1
j-j-f
~---1+ft
Ii,
!
:_-.L~
! I: I! i
i
I
I
I t I
i I
i Til I I I I I i 'j
t::=
I
I I I
4~ ::::r _____ L_!
I I ! j _L_LLL
L_
1 _______ L_i.J !
i I I I
::tt
I+:::J
I I
I
I I i I
~
1II1II111 1!lil !u
I I
I
if H
i'
iii!
, Ii
jJ
II
i l!i
i Uli
~H-WJ--,-
t III
I
i i'l
Hi§
w
mE5
1 ii'
r-:--'""
'
I
I
,
-+
I I ! -III I!!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I Ii
H II LlJ
, i
i I n
LLJ
Ii!
I
t
i
I
i
j
Hfl+H-t-H±
R+mtttH
I I ]i
Note that the vertical dimension'is a probability plot.
30
~
-~
I I
ff'
. ~-<-I
-Lt-
,1-',
20
10
5
2
0.5
"""
,-
j i
0.2
0.1 0.05
!i
I
, +-+-1
---I-i--1::
0.01
t-+-
tJ>
'"d
'"d
tIj
Z
t1
J-t
i>
P
j
~
~
co
~
,::::;
I;
CD
-::J .
!:-~--1':-j~~
I
__ ,t~--H+
I ~!t-
'
i
t+
40
50
60
70
80
90
95
98
99
99.8 99.9
99.99
,.,J
r
J:,.
O':l
~
Cumulative frequency curves for Gallows Bay samples. Note that the vertical dimension is a probability plot.
99.99
99.9 99.8
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
0.5
0.2
0.1 0.05
0.01
1, -
o
-
1"
OJ
-H-i'
~.-~0J,'"
:t=t=t: ,,==1
-
1
:
t-~.,...:
-----'--
_I i:
I
'
i
ri-r-:-'
n-p
G+1
-4L
t+f
... +--;
~.~
Uil
;..ill
111,
i
: L'
;! !I
LlJ.J.
" ,
i--:-;"
!, I
L±ft=_L--TI
L~:i,
=-r'T": jj
~-~-,
j
.,.
" ,
+Hi, ""
-r- :
'1:1
-- 1 !
TT~l
Ull
III:
"m
,
hi
7'ii
i!
II "
R#
'1JJ
m
!Ii
H+i
H-h
IT'
, "
-4
'I
i_~i---
+H
j~:11rn
'-'-'
"f I I
t1
u
i-!+
t-H
~
i I!!
:-, I~
"
, -'Ii
R Ii
ffi
'L-u
I:
u.
" ilJ
!...
11
Ll I, P
, ,
" iTr--,-, II
t-fP--L
i
~
I'
, ,
ii,
Ii
1
"
u
H"
r-tT'
D
iliLLl
Ll.LJ---Ll
-1
----
_L '
,
'I
tm
--1 i:-r-H
:tt
I
~
"I
!
I~ ,
, ,
I
I I II ,"
i !i
il
, ,
lLLL!,
1111
"
id
1
I
'~+j+'
,
I
-,
~~l,-j-i h
I
1 ,
-1-'--l-I-+--U~-1--1--1- -1--1-
I,
I 'tt I
1
I
I
I
-UT;
,
,
r-;-.
, "
,
,
I
I I &-t. ~
1 ,
J..
-L
_J
Ll_l-L
I
I!
, ,
I'
I
111I I
, , ,
I
,
li J..
J..
II j
i
----------
,- "I
!~~
,
.L
-!-i~_
,,1
iii
-,
h
Iii
:P
I-t:J
I-t:J
t:tJ Z
U
J-I
l><1
J-I
J-I
..
I:!:j
.....
aq
~
::-
~
"i
CD
00
I
"
f!+~
Ittt
H-W-C1C\t
I'
-++f- ,
ttf,l~ Hi
~
,ITt,
I
1', IT', lIT;
l' i
i ,-t ,i' ittt
! 1
',_-L -~I+ t'J+nf
I: I,
I
\
H
==1=, _Lllli _.J,
,
I I L+
I I I I 11+ "! II
, H'
lLLLLH
L.L...IIIH
fA
t
=t::t" L 1 I 1'1
I
J
! IT "
~t=f-'
rTTTi
-1-
-f -_ :1-iI
['
1-, ; ';
,I --, '" 'it -I-t+-+--+--f-'
t
::!
I H+++
i!1
1+ -
I
i
I T I-f:
II
I
: : i
H +- Rff+
'"
,
,
-'--l"
l---i--
.L
__ ~i
HH~± '.0LfMtft',
' It"a
1
',.f--~ I(!}'I-
'
I, "
'. L " H-i+,
LJ_i!I
r-II<-I
I!
!
IT
If:! ~
1
JILT 1
I
II
I
~-4++,
~--
I ±: rj':-,
,
:T;:-: :; : + -L
"
.. L. ,+-1+-+ . '::;Ll,r~r+ ,: 1+
- I-hi :l'Tl--. H}: Jf+-F
reb j'tj-t--I--±=i-
:
I : I
.----,
<-'-1-'----,-,-,-, ;;-' --:-1- ""-, --:--j-- Mit
i
, lit-I-,
- -['i-I'ITI i -, E-F ,-j-t-t-
r,;-i-tt! . ,
,- =_I,=tti, ,tttt:t:t==t
---+-,! -q- :;:,J==--±=
.
-~,' +,tL~~t~~_f-;':'H='U'-: ~i,. '. +14 =R~t['t-Ht ,1+-ftt
I t+~:~+t±f-!~ tj-1' t-t
' ++ ?;t ±I-I-+~ ~I:
:, ,~:=-t=1==1
---·--t->-···;~i-:"--i---{
f[ --t--t-r}
=+=i=+=1' ~--·r-;··-·-:---'rt--~Ht·-I'--+;- -+--
rt~-T-I,...-++-l-i--
t~-_.J..···
. I
--f- --+
t-
-I
t:tt=t=::1
------0--,-1 ,---- -"",---L----'---:-..I ! i
-+---~-;l--\--t-'
!
_'0.'''_
+'--'-' __ ,
.. ', I 'J" -l-
I'--;-ii'- -H--'-+ _1_1 L..J Ji
L-l+,l-!-L-
I---I--\--L--' "
"'_
"_
I
~
. ~ f
_
'
I
I
.
I
~"
, ! .
I:
ill I
I
,
,! I '
I
I
' I rT
I,
i ! ! ~'
, I , i
I
0.01
0.05 0.1
0.2
0.5
1
2
5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
95
98
99
99.8
99.~
99.99
-,
I
H:::..
-;J
I
Cumulative frequency curves for Gallows Bay samples.
99.99
99
98
95
90
80
o
oo-
'\9..'"
w
-l:.
1..1
..!~
+H
++~
I i IE
--I---k : h.
,
-r-i
---,I
,
: i
: Ii
_+,:i
, ,
Hil
, ,
t+r
ii
III
Ilh
f
III
Ii'
:....:..l.: .. _
H±H±
~~+i~
~
. ...i..C
ti1..J?
'I II
n-fi
I'
-, -,-: '
I'
t i
lIlt i IiI
Ii! iI i
I I I!
, ,
;I
i:
L_
I Ii'
I I i I
If
IJ
iii
1'J
i'
I t I u It
I! 1:1 Ii
,Ittl Ii
I~
I, :
I'
, ,
i
, I
, ,
! i
rW
----i..-.L-L 1
I
'
I
Ii! I
I I !
iii
, ,
-H+'
~'
" ii
i I
,
il
"
LH"
,
I
-' -' '-'
ii I
i'
'1
H
Ii
[III
111
jJ..ill
'....ll..L
1111
,
'II;
I,
II
+T
II I
! li!1 i ,!
-~'
I ~~:f:~I~ ~,I lEEl 8E"""Tt
~EE:: nmm
I '_oo iT ------------t=: . rc---+-~
-
, I ,
I
I
,I
-'---'H--H-+-H--!-+
70
I I
1--1
iT
L
! i
H+i!
.
·==-r-:==
-;~-r---:-=q·", ~-"'-
0.01
0.05 0.1
0.2
0.5
2
5
10
20
30
60
50
=+-
H-+--
40
50
Note that the vertical dimension is a probability plot.
40
'.I....
60
30
70
"J
20
10
80
90
5
2
0.5
""""'\
-H
95
98
99
0.2
0.1 0.05
ill
"'
t
11
0.01
tJ>
1:1
1:1
l::rj
Z
d
~
H
H ..
~
1-"
()'q
s::
'"S
(])
co
(j)
,.,
~
~
~
leA)
~~ I-H~m$l$=t~
'11
-..:d* J--j=t
.. '-'---'
99.8 99.9
99.99
I
;I:>.
00
I
o
."1,
"'Q..N
l»
~
0.01
Ii
,
it
h
'"
;-WH
r i~1
1-1" i
!
, i
,
I
rrfrr::UT'
t-IITm-1 rt
i I
-f-H-U
--i
i
i
j
L'~
, !
h
!
j
i'
II:
-(II
!--,~
H-
, -
Note that the vertical dimension is a probability plot.
40
30
20
l1+H
i
-,
i
:itH-
-T
, ,
L
I,
:tJ
,
I ,-I
ri-
,J -p ,
10
5
2
0.5
0.2
0.1 0.05
0.01
-ifl' I' , I ':=p'1tR I I I ~
,,1_, ii'
! I
'~:rrt '
"""
Tlll~'
i
,TT
·u
"1j
t:rj
Z
t:l
t-I
l>.
co
I
Cumulative frequency curves for Gallows Bay samples.
99.99
99.9 99.8
99
98
o
~
'&..N
Ifl
~
-Em, :mLI-----t-OC
I
"
-;J
-+---r- - '-'4
1111
I
I i
I J
II i
i-'
if-h
,I
j II!
I
ill
I m
III
Ii
11
i!TT
m
i 11
I !i
m
i
!: I
! I)'
"
,
ffi1
: I'
''1'j
i-t,
Ih-i-
itt!
~
q
1 j It
IIi
II
LlIJ
;
1 LLU
,-r;1l '
.,f
! !
n
Iii
I
~I_'
I;! I
! \,
I I
Ll
I
i-'-:+-
"t'~.-LU'
-H,--'-,:,, -j',,~,;, ~~
-W-L'
~~- _iFF ____
_ __ [ .. ,i
; __ r+t+
i-
Il i
--..;;;
0.0,
0.05 0.1
0.2
0.5
2
95
I
I
:
!
90
80
II
1"1 i I
If1-++
! Ii
I
II
'I
I II i I
j I
! II
I
!I
I in
II
i
(!i
!J..W.U
II i
Ul
!II
l!
II
LITin
I I i H+t
i!
70
60
50
I I
1-[
I T
--1-
40
50
Note that the vertica 1 dimension is a probability plot.
40
30
'--j-
T
60
70
01
20
~m1t
+il±if-
80
10
90
5
2
95
98
I I
I I
i i f
I I
It
j-l
I I
iii
I111
T
99
0.5
0.2
0.1 0.05
I rn
L
I
II
Ii;
o.ot
b>
'"d
'"d
t?;j
Z
t:I
~
t-I
t-I
..
Ij:j
1-'-
(Tq
~
1-$
(J)
J-l
J-l
U)
~
t:;:J
I
6'
rr
99.99
I
OJ
o
Cumulative frequency curves for Gallows Bay samples.
99.99
99.9 99.8
I -
E-1,,-1 il:!
L+-+
-l--t-·~
T-;--:
H=J:P" t I
L. ___ L...L,'
-,'
,~ .::J...-
r---r- : I:~
__ .! _
!
;
I
~
-;-
" :+++-t-
I
L--+--
·i~~·
I
!-1
,-<' ;
o r--1-
-
: i:
I
I
1----+--+--HI+t~-T
I ! I',\tr
,
~-i
f---i--.
H-ti
7!T1
I 6J.Lill
-+8
"'6.",
TTT1
n
J\
..0'
.....
I"
T
Vol
-.t.
I
i
I
" "
;-:
ii
i: I:
i
~ : 1
!, ,
I
i I 'Ii
'+ i:
I: !
I..:.J,
1 '
+-+ ! I
0.01
0.05
-+
I
99
98
P,~
I!
I'
_++H,I
-+H-i
; I 1:1
1 L.LL
I
H
I
i iT
i I
ni
_1_' ~"
Lf
i
Jrn
II
f
I
IT
-P
ill
1+-.+
!
.0
! 11
If:ij
~I
1 i I
!! I
-
r
~W
i i
~i
95
L. __
-i~--j
~,
I I
i
I T i
Ii
I I
I
n
I
I
j-
i i
i
I
j
It
I
I
I I
Ii
j
!
I
90
80
1 :
-r-:"-:j
~.
ill
IT_
II
Illi
j i I I!ll
i I
,I
.. llll
, I
i i.1
-iTj
70
60
I!
50
Note that the vertical dimension is a probability plot.
40
30
20
10
5
2
0.5
0.2
I j
IT
iT
11
, I
LUI I1I11 I
I
I
t-H
-t-
0/
0.1 0.05
rn-f
[j
II
I
Iii t I I I. 1
1-1
1-1
..
~
J-.
()'q
s::
"1
('1)
1-&
t\:)
c.f)
»
J
-'-
--t
-J
P
99.99
I
01
1-&
I
'Q
Cumulative frequency durves for Gallows Bay samples. Note that the vertical dimension, is a probability plot.
99.99
99.9 99.8
99
98
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
0.5
0.2
0.1 0.05
0.01
I -
o
N
w
~
--r:: 4; ~i-- -.-- , t, ..
----i-j-;:::
.
..
,
"
III III
--t--+
-
-; -: .. --f-
r I
~
-~tt
r--l--l--..!I-,-- t i-·lJ
Ii
11·
H-<-
"
;,
!iTT.
!! !I
i! Ii
: 1 i:
I; "
IIti
WJ
~ , I ;
i±±i
i 111
IJJJ
Wll
I .;Jj
I"
i
iii
it:"
~
" 'I
tt::t
j I ii
: :.
_.0
Ui..:
d±i
! f ii
i111
It
I III
I'
,
it
jil
U
II
, ,
II
HI! ,
W-!
! Ii
! I
I I
, ,
, I
, ,
L1
, I
I: II
"
, I
t IfJLl J i j
iTTTT!
I III1 I
! f
IT
, ,
Ih
IJ
II
! n-
-j'
I I
~m
'
I' rs
I
i : J n-r::
!±+iT~'
, '
--+-+-+ -:T:'
. . -r-m1l1
1,~1-H+'-rl i! t
i i
,
I
..1...1 ,
...J
, I
H
-l
cL
1+11
ti±' .•
: i; #jilli1idJJJJ1 •.
-i~1~J±ttt!±tt
:--t-, t 'rr- " .j} -l
.
,-.
~. .
j.
i I I -i--, I-I II I I
I
H-
,
lr+-i
I
, ,
II
! I,
11
i:
IJ
... ,-'
,
,
i 'H-ff8mm--::¢R:
~±t-t-+-~_
+-H+-l-ti-+'+
i -1i+H+++'r r
IT
111_·t
,,~ . __
+
I
I
' !
,.
:
i
i ; I
'.
I
Ii it
!
rT" ,.-,..!
-_'_L.L
---' -+---
,
i 1
T
II
--!-
++-
I-t
11"11"
,I
h
11
Lh
14
III T
tJ>
~
~
trJ
Z
tJ
H
:>I'M 0/
1
c.n
l\:)
1
-53-
to calculate the graphic mean and inclusive standard deviation of
Folk (1974) for each sample.
This technique is explained in Folk (1974).
For the benefit of
the reader, however, the following summary is included.
From the
cumulative frequency curves (Figs. 2-13), the grain-size values
(in p ) corresponding to the 5th, 16th, 50th, 84th and 95th percentiles
are ,determined.
Using these values and the following formulae, the
mean (Mz) and inclusive standard deviation (~l) are computed.
Mz = ¢ 16 + 1> 50 or Sf! 84
3
r I = q)95 - ¢ 5
6.6
f;84 -
¢16
+
4
(1)
(2)
The results of these analyses are given in Tables I and II. Table
I lists means and inclusive standard deviations for all samples,
analyzed and classifies each sample according to the graphic mean
(Folk, 1974). Table II lists the relative amounts of mud, sand and
gravel in each sample.
These data were plotted on triangular coor-
dinates
(Fig. 14) to::determine the grain classification by an alter-
nate method.
-54-
APPENDIX II
TABLE I
Sample
Mean (Mz)- ¢
Grain type*
Standard Deviation (2mm)
msG
0-1
37.2
gmS
0-2a
26.7
S
0-2b
1.7
(g)mS
P-3a
2.2
(g )mS
P-4a
2.0
msG
B-5a
38.0
msG
B-5b
33.5
msG
B-5c
46.5
(g)mS
B-6a
1.6
(g )mS
B-6b
1.8
gmS
B-7a
15.9
gmS
B-7b
13.2
Major Textural Class
G. GraveL .•.•....••..•............
C.
graph showing the classification (after Folk,
~ /
of the Gallows Bay samples. Note that most
samples are classified as sands.
'X:-\=;{'_'/7\
\
I
,
X/-Jtti~ - ,
; - __ ct-
_
!
.' --,.!
j \iX:::,
'" \.
j
.I
/
-)
A ,/ ~~~X~~*)<\~~_;~~~*~~
%W*X7~AJ~~X 'tJef'f7.
1
'\I
a~~" "f 0\ ~ (\C11'-l)
A?oo I
~Xv '*
' \L'
'lVR~':"
,/ -,fS l
1-4-'i¥¥r~H-~~
'"
1\
, ./~
,
'Id
~k}\,\/ --,7\
/;./~~,
I,' '_ 'I,' , ! \/
_
*x:x G\~ X-+\ '¥X,~ ~_
,
~
"-'£,
I~
I
'*'
('--X I
;1'\)1
~1-Y-
L7;1 i' -!
I
-
,
.)< ""J2"
_~ ~ -
'''-',(_~~_
/\
/
I
J~
j\ I\/A.~
!\.;,., /
/\/\' \,
/
,I
, 1 V
'J<'::')(-~
'--v ,
1: -1\ 7tAr (¥x-;<:..x-\
1-'-A'!i..::[
'I
'k/, \ , v'
1
'i~-kf\l'\,
Rv-*:~"'v\ '
V
I
V
X-j\~
81 X*~~7SW::~
du
'-\">;''/v 'v'
1
vv'>;'.:"
I
\ \j '\1
I
L\"
f 1
~-~I75::X;'Jii v-"" . ~1\i Ii' ""'"'l ~ II'AI" 'CAAI,=~:B,~
"',I'.: 1!\lV\~~'L,''X~'~~~LY.::[
7V'~- 'v'
"""
\
\' \'.\11"
, "V,,'
'''V'\'-'>(' ,vvv\'7'\l'V VYY',,_
7\/0'WiIV,\'
Y.Y_
"·'.~_V'·
,
' /\1
"
I\-:f.~i 1
"'v ll.'
- y\/'; IV\,
'
,
,
'-1'c7:.s~,
~V*'L,
1
I ''--Y-'L:-,(
'I-;--k ie- ;xx\; {_'LV_ ; ~ ~x-
,
'.\L\6. L~ ¥-
'(-S~;
V\'~<
\/\ /\/V\,
,IV'
/\ v, '\"
V'-/\/' ~
, ,\of
,
\/\/\1' \ 1\ /'
1 /;Y
"~"
,
Q5
~1',',I/'
';'"
:"'Y~_'i
'>!-Y'L~~,\/~;.;I~~S *-/
,\"~\ X1 \ /,
:-~ a::s'~'
,- '~~
C:¥I~-~ \,f'"LV_.1
I ,"
,vYV'
iVYV\7St~~l-',if'-:/\, 'v
,~'\' v',
i'\: 1'e£/\'
1\
'. \1_1....;(,
/\1
7\]\7\/
\',
/
\I".V'\/
/\1
1\;\""jIi
\' '\
1"'-:7'\i
7V\N
!l_\:\/~~
''-L,Y*,
1
~"X7B8 -~ ....
~,!\~B '~
"
,i'V
,
I
I
!
,'LT\lV\l'0'1\l\!\{'7'\!'7\1'7\T\7V~ /'l'5x-X'¥-'i
V'I\. Q/.. ~\i-V:~-f)\~
\
v' /"
'1-\
;/**-,\\
; /-;-,p;.::
II
-k'
V\:
- d(-j(*-XiB\-;-X;-; ~ \
' ~/ v.;x x~\f\b
/
\/'~ ~V-"-\
/\s~
'f-kX!l:'.," ' I )!\' l;z~ _~;:\,V\: ;},t;'fjIM'-7-';jo /
'
,
-!\--y, XX'
8<-::Al1<.'--1-~\srl ,/
,
;-:1\;\,'\'
IJ I'a\J'v
;\, ./':1'7'\1
',I ,i j
' /
''c
IV,,' ,
AI~
'-J\£"-\;\-J<:'-'
"
1 II
00'1-:
:x~~~~JY'::';'
\'
\
/
(,
'v'"
,'L\/\L:-L'I';
'j
\/ ( Y'~.-!\l\i' I
\
I\.,
I
!
\i'\/ \
!
\
,
I\j'\i.\/~
\
\_ 1...\4
/
/~J/',[.k' _L-
/-8\*X _-;;
~"':"OO~X-.:2',
_
1
~)I~S{
lA'
~7I
*;",/':;'1; 0'\W \ '
7\/77\" '\' \
"/,,,'
/~"
/
,!
'\ \ ,
'_"
~'LV-il\/,,'.C"~
'IV
'-" d'iCI;~:_ 'It
\
I
I':"\L
1\
-'"'1.--1 ,,'" I '
I', '
•
'
,
! ¥:\¥X-
J' .!V\_?X---'7;
Ii'
\1/\f\I\
1'1-"1_
,
-7'"t\
f
"I ~M
.
-
-
\ ->---
..,.. -
!..~-a
-- d ~
-~tI
cJ) (J"-fI\
/ B
~ __ .J
-57-
RESULTS
All of the samples fell into the sand range according to mean
grain-size criteria (Table I). If considering the relative importance
of gravel, sand and mud, however, (Table II and Fig. 14) some of the
coarser samples (0-1, B-5a, b and c) are considered to be gravels.
It is felt that both these standard classifications are somewhat
confusing in this case, however.
From these classifications, one
would envision a much coarser material than was observed in the field
(Table III).
Two points should be emphasized to clear up this problem.
First,
the samples were in all cases, poorly sorted.
For example, sample
B-5a contained 38% gravel (> -1 .O¢ ) and 16% material less than 3.0~
(very fine sand and mud).
As a result, the mean grain-size of O.63¢
(coarse sand) ref,lects neither of the major constituents. The grain-
size curves (Figs. 2-13) should, therefore, be carefully examined
in each case, in conjunction with the sample descriptions (Table III).
Secondly, it should be noted that despite the fact that the amount
of material found in the sand range is consistently in excess of 50%,
much of this material occurs within the 3-4~ range (the border between
fine sand and mud - see Table IV).
For example, although samples P-3a
and P-4a (in the proposed dredge site) contain over 70% sand, more than
half of this is within the 3-4¢ (very fine sand) range.
If one takes
into account the fact that ~ome researchers contend that 3-4~ should
be considered as mud, then the whole picture changes and a better
appreciation of the nature of the sediment is attained.
-58-
APPENDIX II.
TABLE III
Sample Descriptions
0-1:
Taken on the upper surface of the floodway delta; surface
littered with pebbles and gravel.
Sediment is similar through
upper 30+ cm of core.
Surface sample taken.
0-2:
Taken in 20 cm of water on delta front;
turns quickly to mixed mud and fine sand
a) upper 15 cm
b) second 15 cm
pebbles on surface only;
quickly.
P-3a: Taken along inner portion of small dock, in 210 cm of water;
Core was generally mud with coarse sand pods and lenses
(primarily occurring at a depth of 15 cm).
P-4a: Taken along outer portion of small dock, in 210 cm of water;
sediment similar to that found in core P-3a; in addition, a
rooted or organic lImat ll was often encountered when the bottom
was probed.
B-5:
Taken midway between the two docks in approximately 5 m of
water; medium to fine sand formed a thin (1-3 mm) cover on the
bottom; core was predominantly fine sand and mud to a depth
of 15-20 cm; at this point a gravel layer was encountered.
a) upper 15 cm
b) 15-25 cm (mud with pebbles)
c)
25 cm (gravel)
B-6:
Taken 35 m NW of delta front, in 50 cm of water; upper portion
of the core consisted of mixed fine sand, mud and gravel;
below 15-20 cm a gravel and cobble layer was encountered which
could not be penetrated. Several cobbles up to 15 cm across were
dug out by hand.
a) top 10 cm
b) 10 - 20 cm (mud and fine sand were cored, larger clasts
could not be sampled)
B-7:
Taken 1/4 of the way between the large dock and the opposite
shore, in 5-6 m of water.
Core was extrem.ely "stiffll and
cohesive.
It is estimated that 30% of the sample is smaller
than 4.5 ¢ and beyond the range of seive analysis; therefore
the Mz calculated for this sample will not completely reflect
the nature of the bottom.
a) upper 10 cm - mud
b) 10-30 cm - similar
c)
30 cm - mud with strong blue color - probably from
Cretaceous volcanics; much of sample beyond the range of
seive analysis.
-59-
APPENDIX II.
TABLE IV
Percent of sample in the 3-4 ¢ size range.
Sample
Percent
0-1
10.S
0-2a
8.7
0-2b
20.8
P-3a
44.3
P-4a
40.6
B-Sa
lS.7
B-Sb
7.9
B-Sc
2.4
B-6a
31.6
B-6b
29 .2
B-7a
26.0
B-7b
29.7
-60-
Based solely on the grain-size analyses conducted, two conclusions
are made with relative confidence.
First the area is rather uniform in
its sediment distribution. Although most of the samples fall into the
fine sand range, sorting is poor in all cases, masking the true grain-
size distribution, as discussed above.
The finest sediments were
found to be concentrated in the area of the proposed dredging.
Exceptions
were samples 1, 2 and 5.
0-1, D-2a and D-2b were taken from the delta
fronting the flood spillway.
The coarseness of the delta is a function
of proximity to the sediment source.
During periods of high run-off, '
large quantities of material are deposited on the delta as the current
flow rapidly diminishes in the bay.
Samples Sa, 5b and 5c were taken
from the turning basin between the two docks.
The reason for the
consistent coarseness of these three samples is unclear, but may be
related to either the water depth,position of the basin with respect
to the main tidal flow, or the frequency of larger ship traffic in this
area.
The second conclusion is related to the source of sediments in
the bay.
It seems obvious that the major source of sediments is run-off
during rain storms.
Furthermore, the storm spillway is suspected
e
as the main avenue for these sediments.
The general trand seems to
be a concentration of coarser sediments in the delta area and a sea-
ward fining across the bay; sediments at B-7 were extremely fine.
Also, the concentrations of bluish material in the finer sediments
further suggests an origin in the Cretaceous volcanics occurring in
the Christiansted area (perhaps the mineral is clorite).
-61-
The gravel lenses found in the bay probably record major events,
such as the floods of last fall.
During such extreme storms, sand
and gravel could easily be transported to the central portions of
the bay and remain untouched by subsequent tidal flow.
Sediments
incorporated in the delta would be likewise redistributed by waves and
tidal currents.
In addition, these shallower areas can be significantly
and adversely affected by boat wakes.
DISCUSSION
One of the primary considerations of the proposed project should
be transportability of the sedimentary fill in the area.
For that
purpose, a number of relationships have been empirically derived to
predict the velocity needed to iniUate movement of a bed of given
grain size. Figure 15 is one such diagram used by the U. S. Army,
Corps of Engineers (U.S. Army, 1966), based on terrigenous data.
Because most of the material in the project area is either of terrigenous
origin, or else is quite fine-grained, it is felt that this diagram
applies.
It can be seen from Figure 15 that most of the sediments could
be moved by currents on the order of 0.8 - 1.0 ft/sec (24-32 em/sec).
Similar current velocities would be required to move sediments in
+3.0'¢ to +4.0 ¢ range.
Because much of the materi ali n the bay
falls within this range (see Table IV), this value becomes quite
important.
It should be further noted that currents as small as 17 cm/
sec (.55 ft/sec) could maintain 3.0¢ to 4.0¢ material in sus.pension,
once it was initially disturbed. These factors should be integrated
with current data collected as another phase of this project to
determine the potential impact of the proposed work on the area.
-62-
APPENDIX II.
10
8
6
4
Upp~r Limit\
~~
"0
~
c
2
Eroding Velocities
0 u .,
V>
~ .,
CL
Q; 1.0
.,
"- .8
?:
u .6
0
:>
.4
f----+--'~"""<:~K)()<&E'x ~~. ~
to-.
...
,
,~~ ~>-D ~~
t,','
,-..,,::
i
j,"
Lower Limit
Figure 15: Graph of mean velocities required to erode sediment of various
grain sizes.
Note that all samples require but 0.8-1.0 ft/sec
of current to move them.
Threshold velocities in the 3.0~to
4.0¢ range (shaded zone) are of similar magnitude.
-63-
APPENDIX II.
REFERENCES CITED
Folk, R. L., 1974, Petrology of sedimentary rocks, Hemphill
Publishing Co., Austin, Texas, 182 p.
U. S. Army, 1966, Shore protection, planning and design, Tech.
Rpt. No.4, 3rd ed., U. S. Army Coastal Engineering Research
Center, Washington, D.C., 401 p.
-64-
APPENDIX III.
HISTORY AND ARCHAEOLOGY OF GALLOWS BAY
by
George F. Tyson. Jr.
Director of History and Culture
Island Resources Foundation
St. Thomas. U. S. Virgin Islands
-65-
Gallows Bay is a bowl shaped cove, one-third mile wide, located east
of Christiansted and west of Mount Welcome.
It is so named because
under the Danes the place of public execution and correction was loc-
ated in its vicinity, at one point just behind the western shore near Fort
Christianvaern (see Appendix III, Maps 3,4), and later behind the south-
ern shore, near the intersection of East End Road and Public Road (see
Appendix III, Maps 5,6).
While its association with the gallows certainly constitutes a dramatic
cultural feature, the bay area historically has been the scene of a variety
of human use patterns, including maritime commerce, agriculture, fish-,
ing and recreation. Through old maps, charts and paintings, it is pos-
sible to reconstruct a skeletal framework of its historical development.
No evidence survives that Gallows Bay was inhabited by pre-Columbian
peoples. Though the ecology of the south shore makes it a likely Amer-
indian settlement site, periodic flooding and beach erosion, as well as
dredging, fill, construction and other human impacts along the shoreline,
have effectively obliterated any surface remains of pre-Columbian habit-
ation.
The earliest documentation of human settlement around Gallows Bay
dates from the mid-seventeenth century. A crude Spanish map of 1649
depicts one small habitation south of the southern shore line, and a larger
structure near the southeast corner, just below Mount Welcome. A 1671
map by the Frenchman Lapointe identifies a French estate as being sit-
uated near the southwest corner.
Another French map of 1682 (see Appendix III, Map 1) shows a few build-
ings in the vicinity of the northwest point of the bay (near the site of pre-
senf day Fort Christianvaern), where a small earthenwork fort is known
to have been constructed by the French. Two other buildings, one pos-
sibly a church, are located at the northeast point of the bay. A road,
running just behind the shore line, connects the buildings at the northwest
and northeast points. Otherwise, the bay appears in its natural state
with no evidence of buildings or agriculture in the plain behind it.
No new developments seem to have taken place in the bay area between
1696, when the French evacuated St. Croix, and 1734, when the Danes
began to settle the island. A rough sketch of Christiansted harbor. drawn
by Lt. Peter L. Stibolt in 1735 (see Appendix III, Map 2), shows no struc-
tures along the bay, except at the northwest point, where the Danes had
-66-
built an earthenwork fort which would, in a few years, be reconstructed
at Fort Christianvaern. A Spanish map drawn about the same time by
F. de Valdelomar confirms Stibolt's characterization.
For many years Fort Christianvaern remained the only significant struc-
ture along the bay. Beck's town plan of Christiansted (1752) and a 1756
Danish chart of the harbor (see Appendix III, Map 3) both show that the
town of Christiansted had not expanded to the western shore by mid-century.
Commercial development, however, wouLd soon engulf the western portion
of Gallows Bay. Christiansted was becoming a trading community of re-
gional importance, and between 1758 am 1786 its population more than
doubled (from 2, 175 inhabitants to 4, 78,7).
By 1760, as shown by Hans
ZolLner'S town plan (see Appendix III, Map 4), and a drawing of the harbor
by J. von Rohr, commercial development had started along the western
shoreline, first next to the Fort and then moving southward. Two decades
later, as shown by Peter Oxholm's 1777 map of St. Croix (see Appendix III,
Map 5) and a 1779 town plan of Christiansted (see Appendix III, Map 6),
the street network of the city extended behind the southern shore line, along
Garden and Green Streets. It is evident from the 1779 plan that several
wharfs and docks had been erected along the western shore, as well as a
few warehouses. One major building had also been built near the south
shore, at the eastern end of Garden Street.
The last half of the eighteenth century witnessed the peak of commercial
activity along the western shore of the bay. Little had changed when
Oxholm made a new map in 1794. And a series of painting:;of the harbor
area, drawn in the first half of the nineteenth century, depict only a few
commercial buildings, fenced by wooden stockades along the shoreline,
and interspersed by clusters of trees, along the western shoreline. It
is not until the 1960's, when the Virgin Islands government constructed
port and dock facilities along the eastern shore, that the bay regained its
importance as a commercial and maritime center.
In addition to its commercial history, Gallows Bay has traditionally
served as an important fisheries center, serving the Christiansted pop-
ulation. The existence of a major thoroughfare named Lobster Street,
connecting Christiansted proper with the bay at its southwest corner,
indicates that by the 1770's, if not earlier, a respectable fishing industry,
and perhaps community, had sprung up in that corner of the bay. A
painting by W. Melbye (c. 1850), showing Afro-westindians fishing by
boat and by net along the eastern shore, demonstrates that fishing con-
tinued to playa notable role during the nineteenth century. Today,
-67-
Gallows Bay serves as an anchorage and staging ground for the fishing
activities of approximately 30 boats. The Port Authority cargo dock is
a focus of considerable recreational fishing activity.
Agricultural usage of Gallows Bay area dates from the second half of the
seventeenth century, when, according to Spanish and French maps of the
period, a few small estates were situated behind the southern shore. Under
the Danes, however, agricultural deve lopment was s low in coming, due,
in part, to the expansion of Christiansted along the western shore, the
close proximity of Mount We lcome behind the eastern shore, and the pre-
sence of a small lagoon and salt pond just beyond the southeast corner.
The existence of the small lagoon and salt pond, both of which have since
disappeared, is most apparent from the Oxholm map and plan of 1777 and
1779 (see Appendix III, Maps 5,6). The kidney shaped lagoon, called
"Little Lagoon" by Oxholm, was located just behind the southeast corner
of the bay, to which it was connected by a narrow channeL. Just to the west
of the lagoon was the small salt pond. The lagoon and salt pond are not
shown in most earlier maps. However, the Lapointe map of 1671 clearly
designates it, and its channe I is depicted on the Zollner plan of 1760. The
Little Lagoon was a distinguishing natural feature of the bay area in the
eighteenth century. Its channel served as the dividing line between human
settlement on the west and the surviving natural landscape to the east. The
gallows was situated near it, and it inhibited agricultural deve lopment.
Sometime between 1794 and 1856 the Little Lagoon ceased to exist. The
Oxholm map of 1794 shows it clearly (although the small salt pond had
disappeared), while it is not depicted on the Rohr map of 1856 (see Appen-
dix III, Map 7). Just why and when the disappearance took place is uncer-
tain. However, a few pairiings of the period suggest an answer.
A view of Christiansted from Peter's Farm, painted by Otte around 1830,
shows the land behind the southern shore line and the southeast corner of
the bay as being cleared and under cultivation, the first evidence of agri-
cultural usage under the Danes. A lagoon-like body of water appears to
be situated between the cultivated land and the beach, but the representa-
tion is too indistinct to be certain that it is the lagoon. More definite is
a painting of Christiansted from the BUlowsminde estate done in 1834,
which shows aU land behind the southeastern shore to be under cultivation.
The Rohr map of 1856 does not depict the lagoon at all, and identifies all
land along the southeast corner as be longing to Mount Welcome. On the
-68-
basis of this information, it can be conjectured that the Little Lagoon and
the surrounding area were brought under sugar cane cultivation by the owners
of Mount Welcome eeate in the 1820's, who also appear to have constructed
a windmill just below Mount Welcome at the southeast corner.
How long commercial agriculture persisted around the southeastern sec-
tion of the bay is not known. In all probability it lasted until the early
twentieth century, when sugar cultivation was reduced throughout the is-
land.
In an associated development, an abattoir was built on the eastern shore-
line around the turn of the twentieth century (indiCating that the surround-
ing countryside may have been used for stock farming). It remained in
existence until 1961, when it was demolished to make way for the present
dock facilities.
While agriculture is no longer practiced around the bay today, at least
some historical continuities are evident. Fort Christianvaern at the
northwest corner, one of the earliest buildings constructed along the
bay, still stands. Maintained by the U. S. National Park Service as part
of the Christiansted National Historic Site, it is recognized as a classic
example of seventeenth and eignteenth century Danish colonial architecture.
The bay continues to support a small local fishing industry. And, currently,
most of the maritime commerce for St. Croix is handled by the port fac-
ilities along the eastern shore.
Except for the spectacular Fort Christianvaern, the bay displays little
visible evidence of its history before the mid-twentieth century. The
abattoir and the Mount Welcome windmill were demolished to make way
for the east shore dock and marina facilities. The concrete and steel
dock faciJitiesbear no resemblance to the wooden stockaded wharfs and
brick warehouses of the eighteenth century. The old residential habit-
ations along Garden and Green Streets have been replaced by concrete
houses of recent vintage. The impression is that around the bay history
has not stood still, but is in the making.
APPENDIX III.
-69-
MAP #1.
French map, 1682
APPENDIX III.
-70-
MAP # 2.
Lt. Stibo1t'map, c. 1735
•
-71-
APPENDIX III.
MAP # 3.
Danish town plan, 1756
Arrow denotes the gallows.
. .
.'
~
APPENDIX III.
, . ': (
',t. 4,
~ ...
' It;.
"l-..I
";~ ~".. .
. . . .
."
,.
.
-;.
.' -.
•
,
-- -- - ---
- ----._-- --
-72-
,
•• II l
'
I
::,..,' :t .. f,~:'" ~.' ,
- _J.
_____ -4
,,:"~~/
-f· . __ J ---t
.'
,,,'
\',
'\ :.
"
0"'
• ,
,
r i;.
i.,
,~
It
. . ~,
:' '.:;
,
•
.
~l" •
:.
..:
... :.
•
~.',ol !
: .
~
~.
1,~
, . ' ...... 1
. t '.
,
,.,"
.1
•
MAP #4.
H.
Zo~lner town plan, 1760
Arrow denotes the gallows.
-73-
APPENDIX III.
L
,
..
.x-
,
If
/9.
II
bi.~ X·
I/~
,1 i)'
~I.\
a.'.
/1.
' to.'
: ,...
"
"
••
...
..
..... " .
.
' ..
.
....
>
•
f"-"'"·
',.I -. ~ ..
i,. ..... -
"
"
f
MAp # 7.
Rohr town plan, 1856
-75-
.
r. ~' "
. .
~.
~
'.',
, ,
. ~
,
\ .......
-76-
APPENDIX III. SOURCES
Printed
Danish R.oyal Academy of Fine Arts, Three Towns (1964).
Johnson, Clarence L. and David J. Jones, Historic Sites of St. Croix,
Virgin Islands of the United States, Part I, Wharf Area of
Christiansted, (Department of the Interior, 1951).
Olsen, Herbert, Fort Christiansvaern, Christiansted, St. Croix, (Historic
Structures Report, Part I, Dept. of Interior, 1960).
Vesce lius, Gary, et. al., The St. Croix Archaeological Project, General
Report. MaY1951 - September 1952.
Maps
1649
Spanish map of St. Croix from Archives of Seville
1671
French map of St. Croix by Lapointe from Royal Library, Copenhagen
1682
French plan of Christiansted harbor, from Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris
c. 1735
Danish map of Christiansted harbor by Lt. Peter von Stibolt
c. 1735-6 Spanish map of Christiansted harbor by Fernandez de Valdelomar
1752-54 Danish map of St. Croix, with inset of Christiansted harbor by Jens
M. Beck
1756
c. 1760
1777
1779
1794
1856
1856
1876
1906
1924
Danish map of Christiansted harbor from Royal Library. Copenhagen
Danish plan of Christiansted harbor by Hans ZoUner
Danish map of St. Croix by Peter Oxholm
Danish plan of Christiansted by Peter Oxholm
Danish map of St. Croix by Peter Oxholm
Danish plan of Christiansted, by Rohr
British map of St. Croix by John Parsons
American map of Christiansted harbor by Capt. Washington. U. S. N.
Danish chart of Christiansted harbor
U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey. Christiansted harbor, Chart #1058
Drawings and Paintings
c. 1760
Fort Christianvaern and Christiansted harbor by von Rohr
1815
Prospect of Christiansted by H. G. Beenfe ldt
c. 1830-31 View of Christiansted from Peter's Rest by Otte
c. 1834
View of Christiansted from Bulowsminde
c. 1845-51 Fort Christian by W. Melbye
c. 1856-57 Christiansted and Fort Christianvaern. Lithography from drawing
by P. Seide lin
c. 1865-6 Fort Christianvaern by Fr. Visby
-77-
LITERATURE CITED
1. Bowden, M. J., 1968. Water Balance of a Dry Island, Dartmouth College,
89 pp.
2. Bowden, M. J. 1974. Hurricanes in Paradise. Island Resources Founda-
tion publication. 115 pp.
3. Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, 1975. Flood Plain Information Tidal
Areas. St. Thomas, St. Croix, and St. John, U. S. Virgin Is-
lands. 43 pp., 24 plates.
4. Dong, M. eta al. 1973. The role of man-induced stresses in the natural
eVOLUtion of Long Reef and Christiansted Harbor, St. Croix, U. S.
Virgin Islands. West Indies Laboratory Report. 4 pp. 1 plate.
5. Francois, P. and Brown, V.
1975. Report on Water Quality, Virgin
Islands, U. S.A., 1970 - 1975. 25 pp. plus appendices.
6. Jacobsen, A. R. 1951. A study of the pollution of the harbor waters of
the Virgin Islands. Files, Virgin Islands Dept. of Health.
7. Madigan-Praeger, Inc.
1974. Report on Plans for Seaport Development
and Relocation for the V. r. Port Authority. 150 PI'. with maps
and exhibits.
8. Nichols, M. eta al. 1972. Environment, Water and Sediments of Christian-
stedHarbor, St. Croix. Caribbean Research Institute Rpt. 16. 141 pp,
9. Rainey, W. E. 1976. Preliminary Report on Sea Turtle'S in the United
States Virgin Islands. Island Resources Foundation Pub. 23 pp.
10.Rebel, T. P. 1974. Sea Turtles. University of Miami Press. 250 pp.
11. Rivera, eta al. 1970. Soil Survey. Virgin Is lands of the United States.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service Publ. 80 pp.
32 plates.
12. Robison, T. M.
1972. Ground Water in Central St. Croix, U. S. Virgin
Islands. U. S. Dept. of Interior, Geol. Survey. Rpt. 18 pp.
-78-
Literature cited - (cont. )
13. Stone, H. G.
1942. Meteorology of the Virgin Islands, Scientific
Survey of Porto Hico and the Virgin Islands. N. Y. Academy
of Science. Vol. XIX.
138 pp.
14. Whetton, J. T. 1972. Field Guide to the Geology of St. Croix (in)
Geology-Ecology St. CroLX:. U. S~ V. 1. Multer and Gerar~ ed.
West Indies Laboratory pub.
303 pp.
15. Zube, E. H., 1968. The Islands: Selected Hesources of the U. S.
Virgin Islam s. University of Massachusetts, 71 pp.