Wo ona squ etu cket Rive r Watershe d Str Healt h lys is · Update to the "Land Use 2025: Rhode Island State Land Use Policies and Plan". Areas with future use potential, under three

For thDecem Tom K 2011 MaDepartmCornell UPlease co

he Woonmber 7, 2

nipe

aster of Regiment of City aUniversity ontact at: tr

nasquetu2010

ional Planninand Regiona

rk44@cornel

Wo

ucket Riv

ng Candidatal Planning

ll.edu

oona

Str

ver Wat

te

asqu

Wa

ream

tershed

uetu

ater

m HAna

Council

uckeRivershe

ealtalys

et er ed

th is

1

TableofContents

Page

1 Introduction

3 Data

5 Methods and Analysis

5 Land Cover and Stream Health

7 Soil Hydrology and Stream Health

8 Overlay Analysis – Priority Protection Areas

8 Conservation Lands

9 Land Use 2025

10 Point Source Pollution

10 Rhode Island Towns in the Woonasquetucket River Watershed

11 Conclusion

Maps & Figures

13 Map 1: Rhode Island Towns in the Woonasquetucket River Watershed

14 Map 2: Land Cover Classified by Impact on Stream Health

15 Map 3: Land Cover – Poor & Very Poor Impact on Stream Health

16 Map 4: Riparian Land Cover Classified by Impact on Stream Health

17 Map 5: Soil Hydrology Classified by Impact on Stream Health

18 Map 6: Stream Health Overlay Analysis

19 Map 7: Priority Protection Areas from Overlay Analysis

20 Map 8: Local and State Conservation Lands with Town Lines

21 Map 9: Priority Protection Areas – Conserved and Not Conserved

22 Map 10: Hazardous Waste Sites

23 Map 11: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

24 Map 12: Rhode Island Land Use 2025 Vision (with Urban Service Boundary)

25 Figure 1: Land Use Reclassification in terms of Impact on Stream Health

26 Figure 2: Soil Hydrology Reclassification in terms of Impact on Stream Health

2

Introduction

This project supports Rhode Island’s Woonasquetucket River Watershed Council (WRWC) in their mission to “encourage, support and promote the restoration and preservation of the Woonasquatucket River Watershed as an environmental, recreational, cultural and economic asset of the State of Rhode Island” (WRWC). Specifically, I forward three main project goals using GIS analysis.

• Analyze current stream health in the Woonasquetucket River Watershed. • Identify priority protection areas and compare these with existing and planned

conservation areas in order to support the WRWC’s efforts to promote conservation of lands critical to stream health.

• Enhance the capacity of the Woonasquetucket River Watershed Council (WRWC) to perform a variety of future GIS analyses.

To analyze current stream health, I reclassify and perform a weighted overlay analysis on two variables which are known to have significant impact on stream health: land cover and soil hydrology. The 2003 Wetland Restoration Plan for the Woonasquetucket River Watershed published by the State of Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM), also uses soil and land cover (along with digital orthophotography and wetlands coverage) to identify potential stream buffer restoration sites (RIDEM, p3). Based on the results of RIDEM’s analysis and further collaborative research with the University of Rhode Island and the US Forest Service, the WRWC selected restoration sites and is currently engaged in projects to physically restore several wetlands and riparian buffer areas (WRWC).

In a related fashion, my analysis is designed to identify lands within the watershed (including non‐wetland and non‐riparian areas) which should be prioritized for conservation, based on their positive contributions to stream health – contributions which would likely be eroded by any future development.

The WRWC requested that I identify the portions of Rhode Island towns which fall within the Woonasquetucket River Watershed. The results of that analysis are also included.

Two goals identified by WRWC as part of a set of potential project outcomes are not addressed in this report. First, the WRWC requested that I delineate sub‐watersheds within the Woonasquetucket River Watershed. Due to a data limitation, reliable estimates of sub‐watershed boundaries were not possible to define. The available DEM (digital elevation model) file from RIGIS (Rhode Island Geographical Information System) is at the 100 meter pixel scale.

3

Given the relatively flat terrain, small areas and small water flows in the Woonasquetucket’s sub‐watersheds, this is not fine‐grained enough to pinpoint accurate flow accumulation – a technical requirement of sub‐watershed delineation. Second, the WRWC hoped that this project would include the geo‐digitization of a planned extension of the Fred Lippitt Woonasquetucket River Greenway. The scope and timeframe of this project and the late acquisition of a drawing of the planned extension requires the accomplishment of this goal to be deferred to a future project.

Finally, all of the files used in this analysis (along with a large set of additional data prepared by clipping files to the watershed boundaries) will be sent via US Post to the WRWC. Detailed descriptions of the steps performed are included in this report, with the intention that the WRWC can replicate this analysis and add to it.

Data

All of the data in Table 1 were downloaded from the State of Rhode Island’s GIS site ‐ http://www.edc.uri.edu/rigis/, and then prepared for use in the stream health analysis. I created a new shapefile for the Woonasquetucket River Watershed from the watershed boundaries file, and then clipped all additional files to the Woonasquetucket River Watershed.

4

Table 1:

‐ Source of data and data descriptions: RIGIS, http://www.edc.uri.edu/rigis/data/

Several additional files were prepared for future use by the WRWC, but not used in this analysis. These include census blocks (boundaries and SF3 attributes), orthophotography, bus stops and bus routes, bike paths, community and non‐community wellhead protection areas, dam locations, groundwater and topography (DEM).

DATA Date Descriptioncirclis ‐ hazardous waste points

1997 Point locations of hazardous material sites designated by the U.S. EPA and RIDEM.

future land use ‐ land use 2025

2010Update to the "Land Use 2025: Rhode Island State Land Use Policies and Plan". Areas with future use potential, under three categories of development intensity and two categories of conservation.

land use / land cover 2007 From 2003‐2004 digital orthophotography.

leaking underground storage tanks (lusts)

1999Storage tanks and associated piping used for petroleum and certain hazardous substances that have experienced leaks as determined by RIDEM.

local conservation areas

2010Non‐State conservation lands are real property permanently protected from future development by recognized land protection organizations other than the State of Rhode Island.

roads 2010Street center lines for all Transportation highways, roads, and streets for the entire State of Rhode Island.

soils 2008USDA/NRCS SSURGO soils delineated with name, type and feature attributes.

state conservation areas

2010Approximate edges of Conservation Lands protected by the State of Rhode Island through Fee Title Ownership, Conservation Easement, or Deed Restriction.

streams 2008 Vector line data representing Rhode Island Rivers and Streams included in the State's Integrated Water Quality and Assessment Report.

topography‐USGS (elevation) ‐DEM

NA1:250,000 scale USGS Digital Elevation Model clipped to state boundary at 100 meter pixel resolution.

town boundaries 2001 Digitized from 1997 orthophotography.

urban services boundary

2006The boundary represents the general extent of the areas within which public services supporting urban development presently exist, or are likely to be provided, through 2025.

watershed boundaries 2009 Hydrologic unit boundary data for the Subwatershed (12‐digit) 6th level for Rhode Island from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service.

lakes and ponds 2002Major lakes and ponds with name attributes; based on 1997 1:5000 photography.

5

MethodsandAnalysis

Land Use The following processes were used to categorize land use / land cover according to its likely

impact on stream health:

• Polygon to raster (cell size 10ft by 10ft) retaining the land use description as for the raster column.

• Reclassify land use on a scale of 1 to 5 with one being ‘excellent’ and five being ‘very poor’ in terms of impact on stream health.

• Calculate the percentage of each class (1‐5).

Table 3 shows the reclassification scheme I employed. This reclassification scheme was modified from a similar approach used by Professor Stephan Schmidt in the Department of City and Regional Planning at Cornell University. Schmidt’s classification is based on a “product of research through the Cornell Department of Natural Resources examining the relationship between adjacent land cover and stream health”. (Schmidt, pg 8). Full details on how land use values in the RIGIS file were reclassified on this scale are listed in Figure 1 at the end of this report. Further, the reclassified land cover values were reclassified again into three categories (good‐middle‐bad) for use in an overlay analysis with soil hydrology.

Table 2:

The results of this land use reclassification are shown above in Table 2. Excluding water, 55% of land cover in the Woonasquetucket River Watershed can be categorized as having an excellent impact on stream health. 44% of the land cover likely has a poor or very poor impact on stream health (Map 3). As evident in Map 2, those lands in the excellent category tend to concentrate in the upper watershed. The overall diagnosis of stream health based on land cover in the Woonasquetucket River Watershed is mixed, making the conservation of lands currently providing excellent stream health services particularly important.

Value Stream Health Impact

% of watershed

% of land cover (excluding water)

% of Riparian land cover

Reclassification for Overlay Analysis

0 Water ‐ n/a 4.0% n/a n/a n/a1 Excellent 52.5% 54.7% 67.9% Good (1)2 Good 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% Good (1)3 Fair 0.8% 0.9% 1.0% Middle (2) 4 Poor 13.6% 14.1% 12.0% Bad (3)5 Very Poor 28.8% 30.0% 18.8% Bad (3)

Woonasquetucket River Watershed Land Use/Land Cover

6

Table 3: Category of streamside health Types of land covers described

Very poor (5)

High/medium-high residential, commercial, industrial, mixed commercial/industrial, roads, airports, railroads, water & sewage treatment, waste disposal, other transportation, vacant, institutional, mines, quarries & gravel pits, urban open, barren

Poor (4) Power lines, medium/medium-low/low-density residential, developed recreation, cemeteries, pasture, cropland

Fair (3) Orchards/groves/nurseries, idle agriculture

Good (2) Brushland

Excellent(1) Deciduous Forest (>80% hardwood), softwood forest (>80% softwood), mixed forest, wetland

‐ Table layout source: Schmidt

Next I identified land cover impact on stream health in riparian areas using the following process:

• Apply a 50 meter ‘buffer’ to streams and lakes/ponds shapefiles. • ‘Union’ the buffers. • ‘Extract by mask’ using the reclassified land cover raster for the entire watershed to

create a raster of land cover impacts on stream health in riparian buffers.

See Table 2 and Map 4 for the results. Riparian areas (those areas within 50 meters of streams, lakes and ponds) appear to have a much higher percentage of land cover which supports excellent stream health (68%) than the watershed as a whole (55%). Riparian lands with poor or very poor impacts on stream health comprise less than a third (31%) of all riparian areas. The health of riparian areas is particularly critical for stream health, so these findings are encouraging. They may also represent a testament to the WRWC’s work to protect and restore critical stream buffer areas.

7

Soils

The following processes were used to categorize soil hydrology according to its likely impact on stream health:

• Convert polygon to raster (cell size 10ft by 10ft) retaining the soil hydrology column as values.

• Reclassify hydrologic groups (A, B, C, D), including those with combined values) in to four classes based on stream health (excellent, good, fair, poor).

Table 4 shows the general soil hydrology reclassification scheme I employed. Full details on how soil hydrology values in the RIGIS file were reclassified on this scale are listed in Figure 2 at the end of this report. Where soil hydrology values varied within the same polygon (such as A/B), the raster cells were reclassified to match the value listed first. Those areas listed as ‘variable’ were removed from the analysis along with ‘water’. For this reason, the analysis of soil hydrology impact represented by Table 5 below does not reflect an evaluation of 100% of the land in the watershed. Given a close match of one of the ‘variable’ polygons with a freeway outline, it is likely that many of these ‘variable’ soils most likely have a poor impact on stream health. It is then not a problem that these areas are left out because the primary goals of this analysis is to identify priority protection areas that currently have a positive impact on stream health.

Further, the reclassified soils were reclassified again into three categories (good‐middle‐bad) for use in an overlay analysis with land cover.

Table 4: Field ID Description Infiltration Stream

Health Impact

A Saturated hydraulic conductivity is very high or in the upper half of high and internal free water occurrence is very deep

High infiltration / low runoff

Excellent (1)

B Saturated hydraulic conductivity is in the lower half of high or in the upper half of moderately high and free water occurrence is deep or very deep

Moderate infiltration

Good (2)

C Saturated hydraulic conductivity is in the lower half of moderately high or in the upper half of moderately low and internal free water occurrence is deeper than shallow.

Low Infiltration

Fair (3)

D Saturated hydraulic conductivity is below the upper half of moderately low, and/or internal free water occurrence is shallow or very shallow and transitory through permanent

Very low infiltration / high runoff

Poor (4)

‐ Description source: NRCS

8

The results of this soil hydrology reclassification are shown above in Table 5 below and in Map 5. 75% of the soils included in this analysis can be categorized as having a good or excellent impact on stream health. 25% of soils likely have a fair or poor impact on stream health. The overall diagnosis of stream health in the Woonasquetucket River Watershed based on soil hydrology alone is good.

Table 5:

Stream Health Overlay Analysis – Priority Protection Area Identification

The following processes were used to develop a stream health overlay analysis using reclassified land cover and soil hydrology rasters.

• Reclassify the reclassified land use rasters from 5 to 3 classes. • Apply a weighted overlay to the reclassified three‐category soil hydrology and land

cover rasters. • Reclassify the resulting three‐category (good‐middle‐bad) weighted overlay raster into a

one‐category raster with only 'good' areas. These are the priority protection areas.

Map 6 and Map 7 show the results of this overlay analysis. Lands in the priority protection areas are those which currently provide the highest level of amenity to stream health in the Woonasquetucket River Watershed. It is important to note that this data is derived from 2003‐2004 orthophotography and additional development is likely to have occurred since then.

Conservation Areas

Which of those areas identified as priority protections by this overlay analysis are currently conserved in some capacity? Which priority protection areas are not currently protected?

Value Stream Health Impact

% of watershed

% of soils in watershed (excluding non‐rated and variable soils)

Reclassification for Overlay

0 Not Rated/Variable 11.8% n/a nodata1 Excellent 17.0% 19.3% Good (1)2 Good 48.0% 54.4% Good (1)3 Fair 20.0% 22.7% Middle (2)4 Poor 3.2% 3.6% Bad (3)

Woonasquetucket River Watershed Soil Hydrology Classification

9

Processes:

• 'Union' polygons of state conservation areas and local conservation areas. • Convert the combined 'polygon to raster'. For this analysis, it is not important which

values are kept. We just want to understand which of the priority protection areas are conserved and which are not.

• 'Extract by mask' the new combined conservation area raster on the one‐category priority protection area (‘good’) raster created in the weighted overlay analysis.

• For mapping, in the display column, place the newly created raster of conservation lands which are also 'priority protection areas' on top of the one‐category 'priority protection areas' raster.

Local and state conservation lands consist of a variety of land use types, including not just forest and wetland habitat preserves, but also recreation areas and water supply protection areas. Those which are primarily used for recreation (e.g. playgrounds, golf course) likely do not fit with in the ‘priority protection areas’ identified in the overlay analysis because of the land use classification I employed identifies recreation sites as having a poor impact on stream health. Still, no extra steps are required to remove these areas from the conservation area raster since they are selected are already selected out of the priority protection raster.

Map 8 shows the general location of the conservation lands in the watershed. Map 9 shows which of the priority protection areas fall within conservation areas. My analysis shows that just 13% of the priority protection areas identified in the overlay analysis are currently protected in state or local conversation lands. Lands in orange on Map 9 represent the non‐conserved lands that provide stream health benefits.

2025 Land Use Vision

It is useful to compare these non‐conserved/priority‐protection lands to the Rhode Island 2025 Land Use Vision/plan (Map 12). This plan “articulates the state’s overarching goals, objectives, and strategies to guide and coordinate the land‐use plans and regulations of municipalities and state agencies and to direct good strategic projects at both state and municipal levels.” (RIDP, p 2) Statewide, the plan uses 7% of the state land area to meet growth needs. (RIDP)

For this project a simple display of the land use categories in the plan and the Urban Services Boundary are displayed. Visual inspection of Map 12 shows that there are a large portion of ‘reserve’ lands in the upper watershed, outside the Urban Services Boundary. Visually comparing these reserve lands in Map 12 to those identified as non‐conserved priority

10

protection areas in map 9 show that there is a good deal of overlap. Fewer ‘Conservation/Limited ‘ lands are displayed than show up in the combined local and state conservation layer we used for our analysis, but the reason for this may be that “the area identified as ‘Urban Development’ is intended to include varying levels of development and will also include areas of protected green space that may not appear on the map.” (RIDP)

As noted in the plan, Rhode Island (and this obviously pertains to the Woonasquetucket Watershed) still has a good deal of forested lands, but these are under threat from rapid suburbanization/development. (RIDP) Reserve lands are those that are set aside for now, but may be included for urban development in future changes to the plan. Areas identified as reserve lands – given their significant overlap with priority protection areas, and their unsettled status – should be given extra consideration by the Woonasquetucket River Watershed Council for priority preservation.

Potential Point Source Pollution

I examined two sources of potential point source pollution in the Woonasquetucket River Watershed: CIRCLIS (hazardous material site, from 1997 EPA data), and LUSTS (leaking underground storage tanks, from 1999 REDEM data). The closer these potential pollution sources are to streams, the higher the priority they may be for mitigation to support stream health. The results of this analysis are shown in Maps 10 and 11.

Process:

• ‘Select by location’ LUSTS and CIRCLIS for ‘within’ buffer distance of streams of 250 ft, 600 ft and 1000 ft.

Towns in the Woonasquetucket River Watershed

Upon the request of the WRWC, I calculated the % of each of 8 Rhode Island towns which comprise the Woonasquetucket River Watershed. I also calculated the % of the watershed made up by portions of each of the towns. This may be useful in terms of identifying constituencies and focusing policy efforts. The results of this analysis are shown in Map 1 and in Table 6 below.

11

Table 6:

Conclusion This project has been completed in support of the Woonasquetucket River Watershed

Council’s efforts to preserve and restore areas important to stream health in the Woonasquetucket River watershed. I hope that by identifying priority lands for protection and comparing these to existing conservation areas and the 2025 Land Use plan, WRWC is better positioned to advocate for the future conservation of critical lands in the watershed.

There are several limitations of this analysis that I will mention briefly. This designation of lands for priority protection is a preliminary effort based solely on soil hydrology and land cover layers. A weighted overlay analysis gives a decent approximation of the relative impact of different areas in the watershed to overall stream health, but I used a fairly rough scale. A slightly more fine‐combed scale could be developed with five classes. For instance, soil types could be reclassified on a five point scale to achieve this and matched with the five point scale which I first developed for land cover. There are also other factors which impact stream health such as potential point source pollution from septic systems which are not included in this analysis. Also, although I am including the shapefiles for wellhead protection areas in the set of clipped files for the WRWC to use in future analyses, I did not look at these jurisdictions in relationship to future stream health protections in this endeavor. This analysis also does not include dams, which can have a significant impact on stream health.

Finally, although technically robust, this analysis clearly has no weight or relevance beyond its use. It is the ongoing work of the WRWC and communities in the watershed which will determine the effects of future development trends on stream health. Future studies which

Town Total Town Acreage

Town Acreage in Watershed

% of Town in Watershed

% of Watershed which the Town Comprises

SMITHFIELD 17669 15598 88.3% 47.6%JOHNSTON 15568 5053 32.5% 15.4%GLOCESTER 36373 3837 10.6% 11.7%PROVIDENCE 12000 3747 31.2% 11.4%NORTH SMITHFIELD 15924 2821 17.7% 8.6%NORTH PROVIDENCE 3706 1611 43.5% 4.9%CRANSTON 18514 62 0.3% 0.2%LINCOLN 12111 10 0.1% 0.0%

12

employ these processes and expand upon them hold potential to show changes over time in riparian health, overall watershed health, and the effects of land conservation efforts.

Sources Rhode Island Geographic Information System (RIGIS). GIS Data accessed 10/2010 at:

http://www.edc.uri.edu/rigis/data/ Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) Office of Water Resources. (2003).

Wetland Restoration Plan for the Woonasquetucket River Watershed. Retrieved from: http://www.dem.ri.gov/programs/benviron/water/wetlands/woonrest/files/p2.pdf

Rhode Island USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2008 RIGIS Soil Attribute Table Descriptions. Retrieved from: http://www.ri.nrcs.usdagov/technical/soils.html Woonasquetucket River Watershed Council (WRWC). Organization Website. Access:

http://woonasquatucket.org/aboutUs.php Schmidt, Stephan. Lab 12 description, Introduction to GIS. Cornell University Department of City and Regional Planning. Unpublished course document, Fall 2010. Rhode Island Division of Planning (RIDP). (2006). Land Use 2025: Rhode Island State Land Use Policies

and Plan Executive Summary. M. Allard Cox (ed.), Rhode Island Sea Grant, Narragansett, R.I. 16 pp. Retrieved from: http://www.planning.ri.gov/landuse/landuse2025.pdf

Maps&FiguresPages 13‐26

13

Map 1:

GLOCESTER

CRANSTON

SMITHFIELD

JOHNSTON

LINCOLN

PROVIDENCE

NORTH SMITHFIELD

NORTH PROVIDENCE

Rhode Island Towns in theWoonasquetucket River Watershed

I0 6 123

Miles

0 2 41Miles

Author: Tom KnipeNovember 30, 2010, Cornell University

Source: RIGISProjection:

NAD_1983_StatePlane_Rhode_Island_FIPS_3800_Feet

LegendWoonasquetucket River Watershed

Streams

Lakes and Ponds

Rhode Island Towns

Towns in WatershedSMITHFIELD

JOHNSTON

GLOCESTER

PROVIDENCE

NORTH SMITHFIELD

NORTH PROVIDENCE

CRANSTON

LINCOLN

Town Total Town Acreage

Town Acreage in Watershed

% of Town in Watershed

% of Watershed which the Town Comprises

SMITHFIELD 17669 15598 88.3% 47.6%JOHNSTON 15568 5053 32.5% 15.4%GLOCESTER 36373 3837 10.6% 11.7%PROVIDENCE 12000 3747 31.2% 11.4%NORTH SMITHFIELD 15924 2821 17.7% 8.6%NORTH PROVIDENCE 3706 1611 43.5% 4.9%CRANSTON 18514 62 0.3% 0.2%LINCOLN 12111 10 0.1% 0.0%

Total Watershed Area:32,739 Acres

14

Map 2:

Waterman Reservoir

Stack Reservoir

Woonasquatucket Reservoir

Georgiaville PondWoonasquatucket Reservoir

Woonasquatucket River

Sprague Reservoir

Sprague Reservoir



Primrose PondPrimrose Pond

Manton Pond

Sebille Pond

Land Cover Classified By Impact on Stream HealthWoonasquetucket River Watershed

I0 2 41Miles




Re-classified Land Cover by Impact on Stream Health

1-Excellent

2 - Good

3 - Fair

4 - Poor

5 - Very Poor

Woonasquetucket River Watershed

Streams

Lakes and Ponds

Note: See attached report for a description of the land coverreclassification scheme.

Stream Health Impact

% of watershed

% of land cover (excluding water)

Water ‐ n/a 4.0% n/aExcellent 52.5% 54.7%Good 0.2% 0.2%Fair 0.8% 0.9%Poor 13.6% 14.1%Very Poor 28.8% 30.0%

15

Map 3:

Waterman Reservoir

Stack Reservoir




Sprague Reservoir

Sprague Reservoir




Manton Pond

Sebille Pond

Land Cover - Woonasquetucket River WatershedReclassified By Impact on Stream Health

I0 2 41Miles




Land Cover by Impact on Stream Health

Poor

Very Poor


Streams

Lakes and Ponds

Note: See attached report for a description of the land coverreclassification scheme.

44.2%Land cover in watershed with poor or very poor stream health impacts.

16

Map 4:

Waterman Reservoir

Stack Reservoir




Sprague Reservoir

Sprague Reservoir




Manton Pond

Sebille Pond

Riparian Land Cover Classified By Impact on Stream HealthWoonasquetucket River Watershed

I0 2 41Miles


Data Source: RIGISProjection:


Note: Riparian Areas are within 150 ft of Streams, Ponds, Lakes and the Woonasquetucket River.

See attached report for description of land cover reclassification scheme.

Riparian Land Cover By Impact on Stream Health

Water

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Very Poor



% of Riparian Land Cover

Excellent 67.9%Good 0.3%Fair 1.0%Poor 12.0%Very Poor 18.8%

17

Map 5:

Waterman Reservoir

Stack Reservoir




Sprague Reservoir

Sprague Reservoir




Manton Pond

Sebille Pond

Soil Hydrology Classified By Impact on Stream HealthWoonasquetucket River Watershed

I0 2 41Miles




Soil Hydrology by Impact on Stream Health

Not Rated/Variable

Excellent

Good

Fair

Poor

Streams

Lakes and Ponds


Note: See attached report for a description of the soil hydrologyreclassification scheme.


% of land in watershed (excluding water, non‐rated and variable soils)

% of watershed

Not Rated/Variable n/a 11.8%Excellent 19.3% 17.0%Good 54.4% 48.0%Fair 22.7% 20.0%Poor 3.6% 3.2%

18

Map 6:

Stream Health Overlay Analysis - Woonasquetucket River Watershed Combined Impact of Soil Hydrology & Land Cover

I0 2 41Miles




Data Process for Overlay Analysis:Land cover and soil hydrology were each reclassified into three distinct classes according to likely impact on stream health (good-middle-bad). Then, a weighted overlay was applied, with soil type and land cover weighted equally at 50%.

See attached report for a complete description of the soilhydrology and land cover classification scheme.

Impact on Stream HealthGood

Middle

Bad

Streams

Lakes and Ponds


Note: Areas appearing in light grey within the watershed have variable soil types or no soilsdata available.

Analysis: For the best future stream health outcomes, areas appearing in green (good) should be prioritized for protection.

19

Map 7:

I 29 5 S

I 295 NFARNUM PIKE

LOG

RD

DOUGLAS PIKE

US HWY 6 E

GREENVILLE AVE

HAR

RIS

RD

SMITH ST

US HWY 6 W

EVANS RD

COO

PER RD

TARKLIN

RD

WASHINGTON HWY

AUSTIN AVE

STILLWATER RDLIM

EROCK RD

SWAN RD

CHALKSTONE AVE

WINSOR AVE

VALLEY ST

RIDGE RD

EXIT

WATERM

AN AVE

MOUNTAINDALE RD

SMITH AVE

PINE H

ILL AVE

BLACK PLAIN

RD

I 95

S

SAW

MIL

L R

D

EATON ST

TARKILN RD

CO

LWEL

L R

D

PRO

VIDEN

CE PIKE

HANTON CITY TRL

CRANSTON S

T

BORDEN AVE

DORA ST

GR

AN

GE R

DCEDAR SW

AMP RD

PUTNAM PIKE

SMITHFIELD RD

CHERRY HILL RD

EXIT

7B

BAR

NE

S S

T

BAYOU

DR

OLNEY AVE

LEADING ST

BROW

N AV

E

MILTON ST

GROVE ST

LORI DR

MER

INO

ST

ROSEMONT AVE

RIDGE RD

SMITH ST

I 295

NEX

IT

Stream Health Overlay Analysis - Woonasquetucket River Watershed Priority Protection Areas

I0 2 41Miles




LegendPriority Protection Areas

Streams

Lakes and Ponds


Roads

20

Map 8:

SMITHFIELD

JOHNSTON

GLOCESTER

PROVIDENCE

NORTH SMITHFIELD

NORTH PROVIDENCE

CRANSTON

LINCOLN

Woonasquetucket River WatershedLocal and State Conservation Lands with Town Lines

I0 2 41Miles




LegendStreams

Roads

Local Conservation Lands

State Conservation Lands

Lakes and Ponds


Note:Local Conservation Lands are "real property permanently protectedfrom future development by recognized land protection organizations other than the State of Rhode Island" (municipalities & NGOs) -RIGIS

State Conservation Lands are "protected by the State of Rhode Island through Fee Title Ownership, Conservation Easement, or Deed Restriction." -RIGIS

21

Map 9:

Woonasquetucket River WatershedPriority Protection Areas - Conserved and Not Conserved

I0 2 41Miles




Priority Protection AreasConserved (in State or Local Conservation Lands)

Not Conserved

Streams

Lakes and Ponds

Roads


Note:Priority protection areas were identified by using an overlay analysis of soil hydrology and land cover. See attached maps and report for a full description.

13%:Lands identified as priority protection areas for stream healththat are currently protected.

22

Map 10:

!(

!(!( !(

!(!(

!(

!( !(!(

!(

!(

BOSWORTH STREET

CENTREDALE MANOR

PROVIDENCE BARREL

DAVIS (GSR) LANDFILL SPEIDEL/GORHAM COMPANY

DAVIS LIQUID WASTE SITE

TUCKERS INDUSTRIAL DUMP

SMITHFIELD TOWN LANDFILL

N. SMITHFIELD NIKE CON. AREA

SMITHFIELD CHEMICAL IND. DUMP

NEW ENGLAND PRECISION PROD (D+

ABATE & URSILLO PLATING (FORM)

Woonasquetucket River WatershedHazardous Waste Sites

I0 2 41Miles




Legend

!( Hazardous Material Sites

less than 250 ft from a stream

250-600 ft from a stream

600-1000 ft from a stream

Streams

Lakes and Ponds

Roads


Note: Hazardous waste materials sites were designated by the U.S. EPA and RIDEM. This data data was published in 1997.

The Woonasquetucket River Watershed Council is currently "working with the EPAas well as local and state partners to make sure that the cleanup work done at the Centredale Manor superfund site is conducted in a way that will best protect the health and other interests of the residents of the area as well as the health of the river."-- WRWC

23

Map 11:

#*#* #*

#*#*#* #*#* #*#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#* #* #*#* #*#* #*#*#* #*#* #* #*#* #*#* #* #*#* #*#* #* #* #*#* #*#* #*#*

#* #*#*#* #* #*

#*#*#* #*

#*#*

#*#*#* #*#* #*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*

#*#*#*#*#*

#* #*#*#*#*

#*#* #* #*#*

#*#*#*

#*#* #*#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*

#*

#*

Woonasquetucket River WatershedLeaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUSTs)

I0 2 41Miles




Legend#* LUSTS

#* LUSTs less than 250 ft from a stream

Streams

Lakes and Ponds

Roads


Note: LUSTs are "storage tanks and associated piping used for petroleumand certain hazardous substances that have experienced leaks as determined by RIDEM." (RIGIS)This data was published in 1999.

15 LUSTs are within 250 of streams.

24

Map 12:

Rhode Island Land Use 2025 Vision (with Urban Service Boundary)Woonasquetucket River Watershed

I0 2 41Miles




Notes:The Urban Service Boundary is not a legal political boundary; it is a conceptual area from the Rhode Island 2025 Land Use Planwithin which urban development ideally would be contained by Rhode Island municipalities.

Given a substantial overlap between 'reserve' areas (those in blue on this map) set aside for potential future development, and priority protection areas identified using a land cover and soil hydrology overlay analysis, efforts should be made in futureplanning to move more of these lands into the conservation category.

LegendLand Use 2025 Plan

Conservation/Limited

Major Parks & Open Space

Non-urban Developed

Prime Farmland

Reserve

Sewered Urban Developed

Urban Development

Streams

Lakes and Ponds

Urban Service Boundary

25

Figure 1: Woonasquetucket River Watershed, Land Use Reclassification in terms of Impact on Stream Health

Values Category Reclassified in terms of Streamside Health

111 High Density Residential (<1/8 acre lots) very poor (5) 112 Medium High Density Residential (1/4 to 1/8 acre lots) very poor (5) 120 Commercial (sale of products and services) very poor (5) 130 Industrial (manufacturing, design, assembly, etc.) very poor (5) 141 Roads (divided highways >200' plus related faci very poor (5) 142 Airports (and associated facilities) very poor (5) 143 Railroads (and associated facilities) very poor (5) 144 Water and Sewage Treatment very poor (5) 145 Waste Disposal (landfills, junkyards, etc.) very poor (5) 147 Other Transportation (terminals, docks, etc.) very poor (5) 152 Commercial/Industrial Mixed very poor (5) 162 Vacant Land very poor (5) 170 Institutional (schools, hospitals, churches, etc.) very poor (5) 740 Mines, Quarries and Gravel Pits very poor (5) 750 Transitional Areas (urban open) very poor (5) 760 Mixed Barren Areas very poor (5) 146 Power Lines (100' or more width) poor (4) 113 Medium Density Residential (1 to 1/4 acre lots) poor (4) 114 Medium Low Density Residential (1 to 2 acre lots) poor (4) 115 Low Density Residential (>2 acre lots) poor (4) 161 Developed Recreation (all recreation) poor (4) 163 Cemeteries poor (4) 210 Pasture (agricultural not suitable for tillage) poor (4) 220 Cropland (tillable) poor (4) 500 Water n/a ‐ remove from layer 230 Orchards, Groves, Nurseries fair (3) 250 Idle Agriculture (abandoned fields and orchards) fair (3) 300 Brushland (shrub and brush areas, reforestation) good (2) 410 Deciduous Forest (>80% hardwood) excellent (1) 420 Softwood Forest (>80% softwood) excellent (1) 430 Mixed Forest excellent (1) 600 Wetland excellent (1)

‐ Source: RIGIS

26

Figure 2: Woonasquetucket River Watershed Reclassification of Soil Hydrology by Impact on Stream Health

Field ID Stream Health Impact A 1 ‐ Excellent B/B/D 2 ‐ Good B 2 ‐ Good C 3 ‐ Fair C/C/D 3 ‐ Fair D 4 ‐ Poor C/VAR 3 ‐ Fair WATER/NOT RATED 0 ‐ NR VARIABLE 0 ‐ NR A/B 2 ‐ Good B/VAR 2 ‐ Good A/VAR 1 ‐ Excellent D/B 4 ‐ Poor

‐ Source: RIGIS

Documents

Wo ona squ etu cket Rive r Watershe d Str Healt h lys is · Update to the "Land Use 2025: Rhode Island State Land Use Policies and Plan". Areas with future use potential, under three