SITE FEASABILITY ACCESS PROJECT An environmental study and design of river access sites along the historic Blackstone River Corridor in Rhode Island. Community Partner: The Blackstone Valley Tourism Council Academic Partner: School of Engineering, Computing & Construction Management Fall 2013 & Spring 2014 The Roger Williams University Community Partnerships Center The Roger Williams University (RWU) Community Partnerships Center (CPC) provides project based assistance to non-profit organizations, government agencies and low- and moderate-income communities in Rhode Island and Southeastern Massachusetts. Our mission is to undertake and complete projects that will benefit the local community while providing RWU students with experience in real-world projects that deepen their academic experiences. CPC projects draw upon the skills and experience of students and faculty from RWU programs in areas such as: • American Studies • Justice Studies • Architecture and Urban Design • Law • Business • Marketing and Communications • Community Development • Political Science • Education • Psychology • Engineering and Construction Management • Public Administration • Environmental Science and Sustainability • Public Relations • Finance • Sustainable Studies • Graphic Design • Visual Arts and Digital Media • Historic Preservation • Writing Studies • History Community partnerships broaden and deepen the academic experiences of RWU students by allowing them to work on real-world projects, through curriculum-based and service-learning opportunities collaborating with non- profit and community leaders as they seek to achieve their missions. The services provided by the CPC would normally not be available to these organizations due to their cost and/or diverse needs. CPC Project Disclaimer: The reader shall understand the following in regards to this project report: 1. The Project is being undertaken in the public interest. 2. The deliverables generated hereunder are intended to provide conceptual information only to assist design and planning and such are not intended, nor should they be used, for construction or other project implementation. Furthermore, professional and/or other services may be needed to ultimately implement the desired goals of the public in ownership of the project served. 3. The parties understand, agree and acknowledge that the deliverables being provided hereunder are being performed by students who are not licensed and/or otherwise certified as professionals. Neither RWU nor the CPC makes any warranties or guarantees expressed or implied, regarding the deliverables provided pursuant to this Agreement and the quality thereof, and Sponsor should not rely on the assistance as constituting professional advice. RWU, the CPC, the faculty mentor, and the students involved are not covered by professional liability insurance. 4. Neither RWU, the CPC, the faculty mentor, nor the students involved assume responsibility or liability for the deliverables provided hereunder or for any subsequent use by sponsor or other party and Sponsor agrees to indemnify and hold harmless RWU, the Center, the Faculty Mentor, and the Center’s student against any and all claims arising out of Sponsor’s utilization, sale, or transfer of deliverables provided under this Agreement. Community Partnerships Center Roger Williams University One Old Ferry Road Bristol, RI 02809 [email protected] http://cpc.rwu.edu SITE FEASABILITY ACCESS PROJECT AN ENVIORNEMENTAL STUDY AND DESIGN OF RIVER ACCESS SITES A LO N G T H E HISTORIC BLACKSTONE RIVER CORRIDOR IN RHODE ISLAND Project Team IV B.E.S.T. BLACKSTONE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE TEAM TEAM MEMBERS: TIMOTHY CLARKIN, MEAGEN CONNELY, NOELLE LAFLAMME AND TAYLA MELLO PROFESSIONAL CLIENT: THE BLACKSTONE VALLEY TOURISM COUNCIL FACULTY ADVISORS: DR. ANTHONY RUOCCO AND DR. JANET BALDWIN SUBMISSION DATE: May 9th, 2014 Abstract The Blackstone River once was integral to life and industry to many towns in northern Rhode Island, but industrial pollution caused it to become unusable. As environmental remediation continues to improve the river, the Site Feasibility Access Project focuses on assessing the environmental risk of five potential river access sites located along the Blackstone River in Pawtucket, Central Falls, North Smithfield, and Cumberland; determining which site is ideal for development, and formulating river access designs for river rescue. The Blackstone Environmental Service Team (BEST) completed Corridor Land Use Evaluations (CLUE) for the sites by inspecting each site and collecting historical data and information from Government Offices and the Rhode Island Historical Society. Each site was rated using the CLUE rating system developed by BEST and a feasible site was selected based on those results. Research on river accessibility was conducted and Rhode Island state standards and specifications were collected. Two river access designs were developed for the Pawtucket Water Supply Board site: one based on current land use conditions and one to integrate with the proposed Blackstone River Bikeway. The initial results suggest that this process of Corridor Land Use Evaluations and river access design can be used in future developments along the river for safety, recreation and limited commercial purposes. BEST | Site Feasibility Access Project | Page i Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................................... i List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. v List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... vi 1– Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 – Client Project Description ................................................................................................................ 2 1.1.1 – Project Requirements ............................................................................................................... 5 1.1.2 – Previous Work ........................................................................................................................... 5 1.1.3 – Purpose ..................................................................................................................................... 6 2 – BEST Project Description ......................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 – BEST Scope of Work ......................................................................................................................... 8 2.2 – B.E.S.T. Objectives ............................................................................................................................ 9 2.3 – Project Planning ............................................................................................................................... 9 3 – Research ................................................................................................................................................ 10 4 - General Approach .................................................................................................................................. 16 4.1 – CLUE Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 16 4.1.1 – Site Visit ................................................................................................................................... 17 4.1.2 – Historical Review ..................................................................................................................... 17 4.1.3 – Regulated Facilities Review ..................................................................................................... 18 4.1.4 – Site Risk Rating System ........................................................................................................... 18 4.2 – U-RAD Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 20 4.2.1 Regulation Research .................................................................................................................. 20 4.2.2 ADA Considerations ................................................................................................................... 21 4.2.3 Visits to Existing Sites ................................................................................................................. 21 4.2.4 Surveying and Site Information ................................................................................................. 22 5 – Corridor Land Use Evaluations .............................................................................................................. 23 5.1 – Mill Street, North Smithfield .......................................................................................................... 24 5.1.1 Site Location ............................................................................................................................... 24