CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING RESILIENT BRIDGEPORT: NATIONAL DISASTER RESILIENCE AND REBUILD BY DESIGN PROJECTS BRIDGEPORT, CONNECTICUT FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT JUNE 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................1 1.1 Overview ...................................................................................... 1 1.2 Why is the Project Needed? ...................................................... 1 1.3 HUD Resiliency Competitions ................................................... 2 1.4 Overview of the CEPA and NEPA Process .............................. 3 1.4.1 Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (CEPA) ..................................................... 3 1.4.2 NEPA Process ....................................................................................................... 3 1.5 Overview of This Document ...................................................... 4 2 PROPOSED ACTION ................................................6 2.1 Flood Risk Reduction ................................................................ 6 2.2 Resilience Hub ............................................................................ 7 2.3 RBD Pilot Project at Marina Village .......................................... 7 3 PURPOSE AND NEED ..............................................8 3.1 Purpose ....................................................................................... 8 3.2 Need ............................................................................................. 8 4 PROJECT CONCEPTS AND POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES ...................................................... 11 4.1 Concepts ................................................................................... 11 4.1.1 Street Raising and Street Improvements ............................................................ 11 4.1.2 Earthen Berm or Flood Wall ................................................................................ 11 4.1.3 Resilience Hub .................................................................................................... 12 4.2 Potential Alternatives ............................................................... 12 4.2.1 No Action Alternative ........................................................................................... 12 4.3 Build Alternatives ..................................................................... 12 4.3.1 Flood Risk Reduction .......................................................................................... 12 4.3.2 Resilience Hub .................................................................................................... 13 4.3.3 Elements Common to Build Alternatives ............................................................. 13 5 POTENTIAL REGULATORY APPROVALS ............. 15 5.1 Federal ....................................................................................... 15 5.2 State ........................................................................................... 15 5.3 Local and Municipal ................................................................. 16 6 SCOPE OF WORK................................................... 17 6.1 Alternatives Analysis ............................................................... 17 6.1.1 Alternatives Development ................................................................................... 17 6.1.2 Alternatives Analysis ........................................................................................... 17 6.2 Public Involvement ................................................................... 17 6.3 Technical Environmental Studies ........................................... 17 6.3.1 Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy .................................................................. 18 6.3.2 Socioeconomic Conditions .................................................................................. 18 6.3.3 Environmental Justice ......................................................................................... 18 6.3.4 Historic and Cultural Resources .......................................................................... 19 6.3.5 Urban Design and Visual Resources .................................................................. 21 6.3.6 Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................... 21 6.3.7 Vibration............................................................................................................... 22 6.3.8 Natural Resources ............................................................................................... 23 6.3.9 Hydrology and Flooding ...................................................................................... 24 6.3.10 Water Resources and Water Quality................................................................... 24 6.3.11 Coastal Zone Management ................................................................................. 24 6.3.12 Infrastructure ....................................................................................................... 25 6.3.13 Public Services .................................................................................................... 26 6.3.14 Noise....................................................................................................................26 6.3.15 Air Quality ............................................................................................................ 27 6.3.16 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) and Climate Change.................................. 27 6.4 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................. 28 6.5 Conclusion ................................................................................ 28 APPENDICES Appendix A – Comment Response Document Appendix B – Comments FIGURES Figure 1. Resilient Bridgeport Project Area ............................................... 2 Figure 2. Overview of NEPA Process ....................................................... 4 Figure 3. Study Area ................................................................................. 6 Figure 4. FEMA FIRM Flood Zones .......................................................... 9 Figure 5. Potential Alignments for Flood Risk Reduction ........................ 13 Figure 6. Proposed RBD Pilot Elements ................................................. 14 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 OVERVIEW JUNE 2018 The State of Connecticut's Department of Housing (CTDOH), as the recipient of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grant funding and as the “Responsible Entity,” as that term is defined by HUD regulations at 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 58.2(a)(7)(i), intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Resilient Bridgeport: National Disaster Resilience and Rebuild by Design projects. The disaster recovery grants are under HUD’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) National Disaster Relief (NDR) and Rebuild by Design (RBD) programs as part of the agency’s response to the devastation following Hurricane Sandy. The proposed projects are considered a “major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment,” therefore, must comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). CTDOH will prepare the EIS in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and HUD’s NEPA Regulations (24 CFR 58). The EIS will analyze the environmental impacts of alternatives for the construction of flood risk reduction measures that will be proposed to improve coastal and social resiliency in the South End of the City of Bridgeport, Connecticut (the City). Figure 1 identifies the Study Area within Bridgeport. Such measures will be designed to reduce the impacts of flooding on the quality of the natural and built environment in the project area due to both sea level rise and storm hazards, including heavy rainfall events and intense coastal storm events. The EIS will evaluate potential impacts from the proposed action on Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy; Socioeconomic Conditions; Environmental Justice; Historic and Cultural Resources; Urban Design and Visual Resources; Hazardous Materials; Vibration; Natural Resources; Hydrology and Flooding; Water Resources and Water Quality; Coastal Zone Management; Infrastructure; Public Services; Noise; Air Quality; Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHG) and Climate Change; and Cumulative Effects. The publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS in the Federal Register on February 26, 2018 formally began the NEPA review process, initiating the public scoping period for this EIS which ran until March 28, 2018. As part of the public scoping process, a Draft Scoping Document was prepared and made available for public review and comment. The Draft Public Scoping Document outlined, to the extent known at the early stage in the planning process, the proposed project actions, potential alternatives, and a description of areas of potential impact to be analyzed in the EIS, as well as proposed methodologies to assess impacts. During the greater than 30-day public scoping period, comments were sought from the public and relevant agencies both at a publicized scoping meeting and via written submittal (see Appendix B). A Public Scoping Meeting was held on March 14, 2018 where material was presented to the community. Comments were received at that meeting. Substantive comments have been incorporated into this Final Public Scoping Document and will inform the development of the EIS. Responses to all comments received are presented in Appendix A. A Community Engagement Plan (CEP) has also been developed and made available online that describes the efforts being made to engage and collaborate with the general public, including vulnerable and underserved populations, to provide timely information and solicit relevant input. The Draft and Final EIS documents will be made available to the public for review and comment in accordance with CEQ regulations and will culminate in a Record of Decision (ROD) to be made available by HUD and CTDOH. 1.2 WHY IS THE PROJECT NEEDED? Located on a peninsula, surrounded by the Pequonnock River to the east, Cedar Creek / Black Rock Harbor to the west, and Long Island Sound to the south, the South End is one of the most vulnerable communities in Bridgeport, at risk of flooding from both coastal storm surge and regular rainfall events. Like much of the Connecticut coast, in October 2012 the area experienced extreme storm surge, wind damage and widespread flooding from Superstorm Sandy. Bridgeport was pummeled with sustained 70 mph gale force winds and experiencing the highest storm surge in the state, nearly 9.8 feet above normal high tide, that resulted in damages to over 570 single-family homes citywide. Within the South End, 31.2 acres containing 211 buildings were inundated resulting in over 100 FEMA Individual Assistance Household inspections completed in this area, with 89 properties affected, including critical community facilities such as the Walter’s African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, a cultural landmark, which has not reopened since Sandy. Throughout the South End, residents relayed accounts of power outages that lasted from a few hours to over a week. The United Illuminated Company, which serves the larger region, reported that over 250,000 customers experienced outages. Of the roughly 57,835 Bridgeport customers, over 41% or 23,414 still experienced outages 4 days following the onset of Sandy. 1 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT JUNE 2018 Figure 1. Resilient Bridgeport Project Area In the South End the sewer and stormwater system infrastructure is aging. In addition to larger storms like Superstorm Sandy, flooding can also occur on a more regular basis as stormwater flows south from the higher elevation in neighborhoods to the north, flooding intersections passing under I-95 and the Northeast Corridor and hampering access and egress for residents and emergency vehicles. The South End community faces the continued threat of future storm events and sea level rise, as well as socioeconomic challenges that hinder its resiliency from future events. Addressing the risk of storm and coastal flooding in the area creates the first layer of protection, creating opportunities to address larger economic and community efforts that support resiliency in the long term. The proposed project aims to reduce the risk of extreme storm surge as well as chronic flooding, provide access and egress during storm events, and raise awareness about climate change, sea level rise, flooding, and resiliency. 1.3 HUD RESILIENCY COMPETITIONS In response to the extensive damage to communities in Connecticut and throughout the Northeast, the Obama administration created the Superstorm Sandy Rebuilding Task Force, chaired by HUD. As an outgrowth of the task force, in June 2013 HUD launched the Rebuild by Design (RBD) Competition, a multi-stage planning and design competition to promote innovation by developing regionally-scalable but locally-contextual solutions that increase resilience in the region. Examples of design solutions were expected to range in scope and scale – from large-scale green infrastructure to small-scale residential resiliency retrofits. The competition process aimed to strengthen understanding of regional interdependencies, fostering coordination and resilience both at the local level and across the US. In June 2014, HUD announced the award of $930 million to seven winning RBD ideas, one of which was Resilient Bridgeport. Interdisciplinary teams of scientists, engineers, designers, and architects spent months understanding the major vulnerabilities of the Sandy-affected region and developing ideas to improve the region's resilience, with each winning idea comprising multiple phases. The RBD awards assist communities in developing master plans for the areas of focus. For Resilient Bridgeport, the master plan includes the development of an overall resilience strategy covering a study area that extends from downtown Bridgeport to Black Rock Harbor. Through Resilient Bridgeport, a joint urban design, architecture, 2 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT JUNE 2018 engineering, planning, and community engagement team has worked over the past several years with CTDOH, the City, and Bridgeport residents and business owners to develop the resilience strategy, as well as identify a pilot project for Bridgeport’s South End and Black Rock Harbor areas, with a specific focus on the historic footprint of Marina Village. The strategy outlines an integrated approach to managing long-term risk, enabling equitable adaptation and growth, and enriching and enhancing the daily lives of Bridgeport residents. In September 2014, HUD announced an additional round of funding through the National Disaster Resilience (NDR) Competition, a targeted effort under its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program to broaden federal support for resiliency efforts in Connecticut, New Jersey, New York State, and New York City to rebuild in the wake of Superstorm Sandy and other major disasters declared in 2011, 2012, and 2013. In January 2016, HUD awarded almost $1 billion in funding for disaster recovery and long-term community resilience. Connecticut received approximately $54 million to continue the implementation of Resilient Bridgeport and expand its success to the regional and state scales. Approximately $42 million of the funding was allocated to the CTDOH to oversee design and construction of additional pilot projects in Bridgeport’s South End focused on the eastern portion of the neighborhood. With the RBD and NDR funding, and the support of federal, state, and local partners, Bridgeport has the opportunity to show how a comprehensive and multi-layered approach to building resilience that integrates adaptation, risk reduction, and revitalization possibilities can reduce risk and enhance quality of life along the water’s edge. 1.4 OVERVIEW OF THE CEPA AND NEPA PROCESS 1.4.1 CONNECTICUT ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (CEPA) The Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (CEPA) establishes environmental policy for the State of Connecticut. It requires an Environmental Impact Evaluation (EIE) for any state action which could potentially impact the natural environment. Like the EIS required by NEPA, the EIE must include a range of alternatives along with the No Action alternative. For projects that require a federally mandated EIS, as is the case for the Resilient Bridgeport projects, the EIS may be submitted in lieu of an EIE to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort as long as the EIS contents meet all the requirements for an equivalent EIE. As such, the EIS to be developed will jointly serve as an EIE and will meet the requirements CEPA. 1.4.2 NEPA PROCESS While scoping is underway, the project team will begin development of the Draft EIS, expanding existing baseline conditions, preparing base maps, completing data collection, and commencing analysis of the No Action alternative. Completion of the Final Scoping Document will mark the beginning of the detailed alternatives development and screening phase. This phase will invite input from local, state, and federal entities, as well as the community and other public stakeholders, to help develop the criteria by which the alternatives will be screened, and to evaluate the alternatives developed. The project engagement effort is a continuation of outreach, education, and the expansion of community capacity building in the City, building upon the momentum and knowledge base established during the development Bridgeport’s long-term strategy for resilience. This outreach will occur primarily through periodic citizen advisory committee (CAC) meetings, technical advisory committee (TAC) meetings, and public events. The CAC is comprised of community leaders (e.g., advocates, City employees, local residents, etc.) to serve as an advisory panel representing the interests of the local community throughout NEPA as well as the design process. The TAC is comprised of state and city agencies 1 and other key technical stakeholders that can advise and provide input towards design, and provide assistance in targeting permit requirements, critical design decisions, and policy concerns associated with potential project design elements. Federal agencies, including U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, will be consulted individually and as part of HUD’s regular interagency meetings. CAC and TAC meetings and public events will be scheduled to coincide with key project development milestones and allow for interactive dialogue to ensure significant and ongoing engagement. The Draft EIS is the first formal step in documenting the environmental analysis of the proposed project (see Figure 2). The Draft EIS will describe the proposed project’s purpose and need; discuss the alternatives analysis process and the public participation process; describe the build alternatives and the no action alternative; describe the affected natural and built 1 In this instance, there are no federal agencies involved in the TAC; however typically they play a role in this process. 3 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT JUNE 2018 environment; provide an analysis of potential impacts of build and no action alternatives; and identify potential measures to avoid, reduce, or compensate for significant impacts. Figure 2. Overview of NEPA Process Notice of Intent (NOI) to Prepare an EIS Public Scoping Period) Public Scoping Meeting Public Comment Review and Synthesis Public Comment Review and Synthesis Public Hearing on Draft EIS Publish Notice of Availability (NOA) of Draft EIS (45-day public Analysis of Alternatives Prepare Final EIS Publish NOA of Final EIS (available Scoping (30-day for 30-day public review) review and comment) Record of Decision / NOI to Request Release of Funds (15 day public comment period) Once completed, the Draft EIS will be made available for review and comment to the public and it will be circulated to stakeholders and government agencies that have been identified as having particular interest in, or jurisdiction over, the proposed project. As required by CEQ and HUD regulations, a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIS will be published in the Federal Register and in local media outlets, indicating where the Draft EIS is available for review and providing instructions for how to submit comments on it. Following the publication of the NOA, there will be a 45-day public review and comment period, during which a formal public hearing will be held; the date(s), time(s) and locations(s) of the hearing will be indicated in the NOA. At the conclusion of the 45-day Draft EIS comment period, CTDOH will incorporate substantive comments and responses to them into the document and compile the Final EIS. The Final EIS will be circulated in the same manner as the Draft EIS, including the publication of a NOA in the Federal Register and local media, and will have a review and comment period of 30 days. At that time, CTDOH will determine whether a public hearing on the Final EIS is appropriate. If no additional substantive comments are received during the Final EIS comment period, CTDOH will prepare a Record of Decision (ROD) and Statement of Findings. The ROD will summarize the government’s decision, identify the environmentally preferable alternative, select the alternative that will be implemented, and disclose the potential environmental impacts of that alternative, as well as the mitigation measures that the government will implement. If additional substantive comments are received during the Final EIS comment period, CTDOH will address these comments in the ROD. This project-specific NEPA process will extend for approximately 10 months, from February 2018 through approximately December 2018. 1.5 OVERVIEW OF THIS DOCUMENT Public scoping is a critical and necessary component of the NEPA process, and serves to focus the initial stage of the process on the proposed project, the purpose and need for the proposed project, potential alternatives, and environmental issues, concerns, and methods of analysis. Towards that end, the remainder of this Public Scoping Document includes the following sections: 4 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT • Section 2: Proposed Action • Section 3: Purpose and Need • Section 4: Project Concepts and Potential Alternatives • Section 5: Potential Regulatory Approvals • Section 6: Environmental Impact Statement Scope of Work • Appendix A: Comment Response Document • Appendix B: Comments JUNE 2018 5 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT 2 JUNE 2018 PROPOSED ACTION The Resilient Bridgeport Proposed Action will consist of three projects, a combination of natural/green and fortified/grey infrastructure solutions integrated with a new, multifunctional public realm and a resilience hub to facilitate more resilient forms of inhabitation in the neighborhoods of the City most at risk from severe storms and regular flooding from rain events. The Proposed Action would be located in the South End of the City, which experienced the most significant impacts during Superstorm Sandy and has also faced acute challenges in other storms (e.g. Hurricane Irene) and chronic flooding challenges as a result of an aged and combined stormwater sewer system. The Proposed Action area has the following approximate boundaries: Iranistan Avenue on the west, the Northeast Corridor railroad viaduct to the north, Long Island Sound to the south, and the Pequonnock River to the east. Figure 2 displays an aerial view of the project area and the major properties within the study area. Figure 3. Study Area 2.1 FLOOD RISK REDUCTION One project of the Proposed Action would include a combination of measures within eastern South End that would reduce the flood risk within the project area from future coastal surge and chronic rainfall events. The measures may include raised streets, floodwalls, landscaped berms, and both green and grey stormwater and internal drainage management strategies (e.g., detention/retention features, drainage structures, and pump systems). This element of the Proposed Action, to the extent practical, would provide a FEMA Certifiable level of flood risk reduction to a portion of the project area. Different routing alignments and different levels of flood risk reduction are being considered, although all alignments include elevating a section of University Avenue. 6 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT 2.2 JUNE 2018 RESILIENCE HUB Another project under the Proposed Action would fund a Resilience Hub to serve the South End community in its ongoing commitment to build a resilient Bridgeport. The site would serve as a hub for resilience activities, providing a method for dissemination of information to the community and assisting the community in future recovery efforts. The form and exact functions of the Resilience Hub are being evaluated. 2.3 RBD PILOT PROJECT AT MARINA VILLAGE Following Superstorm Sandy, a decision was made by the Housing Authority of the City (i.e., Park City Communities) to replace the nearly 75-year old Marina Village public housing complex with more modern and resilient housing. Park City Communities selected a private development partner to lead the first several phases of redevelopment, which will ultimately result in the 405 units of Marina Village being replaced as components of privately owned and managed mixed-income (and in some instances, mixed-use) developments on multiple parcels throughout the City. Land owned by Park City Communities in the South End as well as other neighborhoods was rezoned and prepared for revitalization including the demolition of the first approximately 15 buildings of Marina Village, some of which have been vacant since 2012. The first two phases of mixed-income redevelopment (including replacement units for Marina Village) occurred in the City's East Side neighborhood with support from the State of Connecticut including CDBG-DR, Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, and state discretionary affordable housing grants and loans. Given the Marina Village parcels' proximity to downtown and employment opportunities, transit accessibility, higher educational institutions, and park amenities coupled with some residents' desire to remain in the South End neighborhood, the next phases of mixed-income redevelopment are slated for the parcels which formerly held the Marina Village public housing complex. In response to regular flooding issues in the area, the Rebuild By Design Pilot Project would construct green and grey infrastructure improvements that reduce the flood risk to the Marina Village parcels in both acute and chronic flooding events. Though the project activities are limited to the area immediately adjacent to Marina Village, the project would be designed to benefit low- and moderate-income owner-occupied and rental housing in the surrounding neighborhood to the east and south as well as in the historic post-WWI, community known as Seaside Village to the west. The project would be designed to be both an infrastructure upgrade and urban amenity, composed of natural and fortified solutions to facilitate a more resilient neighborhood. The existing Marina Village site is bounded by Park Avenue on the east, Iranistan Avenue on the west, Ridge Avenue and Johnson Street on the south and South Avenue along the northern edge. The RBD Pilot Project primarily proposes the following elements: 1. A new road, Johnson Street extension, raised to provide dry egress for the Marina Village redevelopment 2. Regrading of a portion of the existing Johnson Street 3. Regrading of a portion of Columbia Street, north and south of the new Johnson Street intersection 4. A new 2.5 acre stormwater park, to be located just south of Johnson Street Extension 5. Additional street beautification and stormwater improvements along Iranistan Avenue The primary objective of this element of the Proposed Action is to appropriately balance implementation of grey and green infrastructure for the site as required to facilitate a more resilient neighborhood. 7 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT 3 PURPOSE AND NEED 3.1 PURPOSE JUNE 2018 The purpose of the Proposed Action is to create a more resilient South End community, support its long-term viability, and improve health and safety for the community’s vulnerable populations. The principal targeted outcomes are: • Lower the risk of acute and chronic flooding, • Provide dry egress during emergencies, and • Educate the public about flood risks and sea level rise. The proposed project could deliver additional benefits to the community, potentially unlocking development or public realm opportunities, enhancing connectivity between the South End and Downtown Bridgeport, improving existing open space amenities, building up the resilience of local energy systems, and leveraging public investment in ongoing resiliency efforts through coordination with local stakeholders. 3.2 NEED The South End area includes Seaside Park, the University of Bridgeport, residences, some industrial buildings, and several energy providers (including both electricity generators and utilities). The area has a population of over 8,000 people, including public housing residents and other vulnerable populations. The peninsula is exposed to storm surge from coastal storms and the risk of such events is increasing due to sea level rise. During Superstorm Sandy, the area experienced a storm surge of nearly 7 feet above normal high tide, inundating over 200 buildings (including affordable and public housing) (see Figure 3 for FEMA flood zones and the areas inundated during Superstorm Sandy). Flooded buildings are susceptible to mold and other public health concerns. These buildings and other infrastructure assets in the South End remain vulnerable to future events. The areas’ biggest obstacle to continued recovery and resilience is economic redevelopment. Already experiencing economic downturn, Sandy resulted in flooding in the area that shut down or relocated remaining businesses and further exacerbated vacancies in the neighborhood. The vulnerability of the area to future storm events and sea level rise has limited the opportunities for redevelopment in the area. In addition to flooded streets and damaged residential properties, residents experienced a loss of electric power after Superstorm Sandy lasting for a period that ranged from a few hours to more than a week. Disruptions to regional supply chains and power interruptions caused serious complications for local industries. Ensuring the continuity of operations at the power district scale is critical to maintaining industrial and commercial functions in the City. Over the next 50 years, sea levels are expected to rise significantly, which will further compound existing flooding risks in Bridgeport’s South End. Much of the critical infrastructure in the area, including electricity generation, transmission, and distribution facilities and low lying stormwater and wastewater pipes, lies within the coastal floodplain and will face increasing risk of impact as sea levels rise. In South End East, the sewer and stormwater system infrastructure is aging, including an existing outfall that runs along Singer Street in the target area and drains into Bridgeport Harbor during combined sewer overflow (CSO) events. Flooding can also occur on a more regular basis as stormwater flows south from a higher elevation at Downtown Bridgeport. There is often extensive ponding under the railroad underpasses at Lafayette Street and Myrtle Street following rain events. Due to the low-lying geography, the area experiences flooding on a regular basis from rainfall or tidal inundation. Improving the existing drainage system is important to minimize internal flooding and to manage stormwater in both high and lowfrequency storm events. While proximate to its urban center, the South End area is isolated from the downtown by Interstate 95 and the Northeast Corridor rail line and has been physically cut-off from help by emergency responders (fire, police, medical) and others due to flooding of streets (particularly low-lying underpasses under the highway and railroad) that has prevented vehicles from accessing the area during and after storm events, causing safety concerns for the local residents. Repetitive flooding of local streets occurs in the valleys and low-lying areas due to both rainfall runoff and storm surge, making the streets impassable. Portions of the South End lack dry egress for residents, businesses and emergency vehicles when flooding occurs. 8 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT JUNE 2018 Minimizing the flooding at roadways leading into and out of the South End is vital to resident egress and emergency evacuation. The interrelationship between storm surge from coastal storms and rainfall events contributes to the recurring flooding conditions throughout the project area. The proposed project is needed to minimize flooding, protect residents, property and infrastructure assets from future storm surge events and regular flooding from high-frequency rainfall. In addition to reducing flooding in the project area, the proposed project is needed to directly protect life, public health, and property in the project area, allowing for access/egress in emergency situations. With the future risk of storm events and flooding damages, the isolated street network and disconnection from downtown, the community has a difficult time attracting new development in the area. Addressing the risk of storm and coastal flooding in the area creates the first layer of protection, creating opportunities to address larger economic and community efforts that support resiliency in the long term. Figure 4. FEMA FIRM Flood Zones 3.3 GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The following set of draft project goals have been developed that define project objectives while pushing for innovation and fulfilment of resiliency objectives. These goals will help guide the flood risk reduction alignment alternatives selection process and serve as the foundation to effectively measure, evaluate, and screen potential alternatives. • Goal 1: Minimizes risks associated with acute and chronic flooding − − − − Reduces flood risk for critical infrastructure Reduces flood risk for vulnerable populations Reduces flood risk for residents, businesses, and institutions Provides dry egress for redevelopment sites 9 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT − − − − − • Achieves stakeholder buy-in Achieves utility landowner buy-in Achieves community buy-in Leverages investment through coordination with stakeholders Maintains and/or improves access to stakeholder properties Integrates with current master plans Provides dry egress to future development sites Goal 3: Delivers co-benefits to enhance community resiliency − − − − − − − − − − − − • Provides opportunities for green infrastructure management measures Provides opportunities for adaptability to future conditions reduces flood risk for the design life of the project considering sea level rise Protects energy providers during storm events Results in low-level of impact on existing drainage system Is FEMA certifiable Goal 2: Integrates with plans and projects of key local stakeholders − − − − − − − • JUNE 2018 Provides a multifunctional solution Provides public amenities Improves connectivity to Downtown Bridgeport during flood event Improves mobility within South End Facilitates Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Preserves and/or enhances connection to water Preserves and enhances community character Integrates with and repairs the urban fabric Unlocks potential for future development Improves public health Creates and/or enhances the public realm Serves as regional flood risk reduction prototype Goal 4: Project needs to be implementable − − − − − − − − − − − − Avoids potential ROW conflicts or private property Avoids significant utility obstructions/conflicts Avoids known major environmental impacts Avoids known unfavorable subsurface conditions Considers spatial constraints Is constructible within the schedule and site constraints Estimated construction costs are within project budget Provides relative life cycle cost benefits Provides relative O+M cost benefits Provides ability to meet permit requirements Provides ability to meet schedule Provides ability to achieve FEMA (and other relevant federal, state and local) certifications 10 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT 4 JUNE 2018 PROJECT CONCEPTS AND POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES The Proposed Action would involve the development of flood risk reduction concepts that would address the Proposed Action’s Purpose and Need. The community will be involved in the evaluation of those concepts. The concepts will then be screened against project goals and objectives, ultimately leading to the selection of concepts to be advanced forward and developed into more detailed Project Alternatives. The resulting Alternatives will then be further analyzed in greater detail as part of the environmental analysis within the EIS/EIE. DOH will incorporate public and stakeholder input to help refine and evaluate the alternatives. The process, as specified in NEPA/CEPA, ensures that all reasonable alternatives are considered, that environmental and socioeconomic impacts are fully assessed and disclosed, and the public continues to have a role in the process. The alternatives analysis will consist of a comparison of the alternatives' impacts on the physical, natural, cultural, and socioeconomic environment pursuant to 24 CFR Part 58, as well as how well each alternative meets the Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Project. This process, which will be described in detail in the DEIS, will lead to the designation of a Preferred Alternative. The No Action Alternative will also be evaluated in accordance with CEQ regulations at 40 CFR Part 1502.14(d). The No Action Alternative represents the status quo or baseline conditions without implementation of any of the improvements associated with the Proposed Project. 4.1 CONCEPTS Flooding sources, locations of flooding and appropriate flood risk reduction concepts have been identified thus far. As stated previously, the Study Area is subject to two types of flooding – coastal flooding from storm surge events and systemic inland flooding from rainfall events. The success of constructing a reliable and permanent comprehensive flood risk reduction system depends on designing project concepts that take into consideration existing infrastructure and environmental constraints. The key to the successful implementation of this project is to design the flood risk reduction system in accordance with regulatory standards while verifying that it aesthetically blends in with and enhances the existing environment. The location of existing infrastructure such as parks, roads, transit, stormwater systems, subsurface utilities, and foundation structures for various types of infrastructure are factors that will be considered in identifying the available footprint for constructing the various project elements. The size and availability of the footprint area would then then be a further consideration for the type of potential project elements that could be constructed, such as green infrastructure, earthen berms, floodwalls, street raising, etc. It is anticipated that the Propose Action’s concepts may consist of the following: 4.1.1 STREET RAISING AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS Streets in the eastern South End neighborhood would be improved and raised to create a resilient corridor network. The corridors are multipurpose, serving as complete streets that provide multimodal transportation options for residents, while protecting against future flooding from tidal waters during 50-, 100- and 500- year storms. This network would leverage the South End’s existing ridge-line along Park Avenue, connecting this naturally elevated street to key lateral streets through strategically designed and landscaped street elevation. Raising sections of the east-west streets would ensure the local community has vehicular and public transit access to the Park Avenue corridor during major storm events and sets a new, higher, ground plain for future long-term development. Currently the street raising is anticipated for University Avenue, but consideration is being given to lateral street connections such as Gregory and Atlantic Streets that could also be raised up above the 100-year floodplain elevation. Public streets within this resilient corridor network would be retrofitted with green infrastructure improvements such as installing median rain gardens and bio-swales to retain and prevent damage from storm water flooding. More ambitious flood management strategies could be undertaken for University Avenue in coordination with the raising of University. 4.1.2 EARTHEN BERM OR FLOOD WALL As part of the Resilient Bridgeport network, an earthen berm or flood wall (or some combination of the two) would be constructed to reduce flood risk at the outer edge of the South End East. The height of the structure would be dependent on the level of risk reduction desired and limiting factors such as cost and environmental impacts. Ideally, the northern section of the proposed structure would tie into the existing high ground of the rail abutment near the I-95 bridge and the southern 11 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT JUNE 2018 section of the structure would tie into existing development sites or other resiliency measures. Ongoing redevelopment plans in the area are addressing climate resilience through raising new industrial and mixed-use residential spaces above the floodplain and other protection strategies. The earthen berm could integrate with these efforts and potentially create a landscape feature for the neighborhood. 4.1.3 RESILIENCE HUB A resilience hub located in downtown Bridgeport or the South End would unify the RBD and NDR efforts to build a resilient Bridgeport. The specific functions of the hub and how it would be integrated with the community would be determined with input from the public and stakeholders. The function will influence the choice of location. The resilience hub would provide a method for providing information about climate change and resilience to the community and assist the community in future recovery efforts. 4.2 POTENTIAL ALTERNATIVES The EIS will examine Build Alternatives, as well as a No Action Alternative. Currently, the Build Alternatives are broadly defined and presented for discussion purposes below; these alternatives, including various sub-alternatives, will be further developed as part of the NEPA/CEPA process through the Alternatives Development and Screening process described in Section 6.1.1.and 6.1.2. The EIS/EIE will further discuss the alternatives that were considered for analysis, identify those that were eliminated from further consideration because they do not meet the stated purpose and need, and identify those that will be analyzed further. It is expected that project alternatives will continue to be developed and refined during the public scoping process, with input from the public, agencies, and other stakeholders. 4.2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE The No Action Alternative represents the status quo or baseline conditions without implementation of any improvements associated with the proposed project. The No Action Alternative assumes that the redevelopment of the Marina Village site would progress as planned, PSEG and United Illuminating Company would continue any planned energy and resiliency projects on their properties east of Main Street, the mixed-use development at 60 Main Street would move forward, and other projects would be implemented both within and near the proposed project area through the 2022 analysis year. 4.3 BUILD ALTERNATIVES In addition to the No Action Alternative, the EIS will examine multiple “build” alternatives that would implement the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action would consist of three elements – Flood Risk Reduction, a Resilience Hub, and Stormwater Improvements and Dry Egress (at Marina Village). 4.3.1 FLOOD RISK REDUCTION One element of the Proposed Action would include a combination of measures within eastern South End that would reduce the flood risk within the project area from future coastal surge and chronic rainfall events. The measures may include raised streets, floodwalls, landscaped berms, and both green and grey stormwater and internal drainage management strategies (e.g., detention/retention features, drainage structures, and pump systems). This element, to the extent practical, would provide a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Certifiable level of flood protection to a portion of the project area. Different routing alignments and different levels of flood protection are being considered, although all alignments would include elevating a section of University Avenue (see Figure 4). • Integrated Alignment. This alignment would be constructed in coordination with key area stakeholders and include raised streets, walls and berms that take into account plans for growth, development and risk reduction taking place within the eastern South End community. • Interior Alignment. The interior alignment would identify a street or streets that could be raised to provide dry egress for future development, provide some reduction in risk from storm events and generate opportunities for storm water management that produce co-benefits for the community. • Edge Alignment. This alignment would be constructed either in-water or along the outer edge of the community along the waterfront. 12 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT JUNE 2018 Figure 5. Potential Alignments for Flood Risk Reduction 4.3.2 RESILIENCE HUB This element of the Proposed Action would fund a Resilience Hub in Bridgeport to serve the South End community in its ongoing commitment to build a resilient Bridgeport. The site would serve as a hub for resilience activities, providing a method for dissemination of information to the community and assisting the community in future recovery efforts. The form and exact function of the Resilience Hub is under consideration. • Resilience Hub Option 1. This option would be a building dedicated to resilience and education. The building would be a space in all or a portion of an existing building or a new building. • Resilience Hub Option 2. This option would be one or more open air sites integrated within the community that are dedicated to resilience and education. The sites would be located within the South End area, adjacent to existing community amenities. 4.3.3 ELEMENTS COMMON TO BUILD ALTERNATIVES All Flood Risk Reduction alignments would include elevating a section of University Avenue. In addition, all Build Alternatives would include the stormwater management project and extension of Johnson Street at the Marina Village site (see Figure 5). Prior to redevelopment of the western parcel (bound by Park Avenue, Iranistan Avenue, Ridge Avenue and South Avenue) of the site, an approximately 2.5 acre stormwater park would be constructed to accept water from upland streets and adjacent parcels and to retain, delay and improve the quality of the stormwater runoff. An extension of Johnson Street (between Columbia Street and Iranistan Avenue) would provide a raised egress corridor on the southern edge of the future mixed-income redevelopment to facilitate emergency access during an acute flooding event and improve east-west neighborhood connectivity. The redevelopment of the Marina Village site is independent of the stormwater and raised egress improvements in the Proposed Action. 13 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT JUNE 2018 Figure 6. Proposed RBD Pilot Elements . ?Munro-um ?mums: FUNEVIHM BCWE SIOWAI ER RUNOFF DARK. FUTURE - NORWAYER RUNOFF m. FUTURE I I - mommATER RUNOFF AREA TD null: ll amour DARK BASH PARK DUTFLUW TO FLIIP cm I . mm minimum WAEGONNER I IENT PORT a; 14 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT 5 JUNE 2018 POTENTIAL REGULATORY APPROVALS As described in Section 1, HUD’s award comes in the form of RBD and CDBG-NDR funds that require compliance with HUD’s Environmental Review Procedures as outlined in 24 CFR Part 58, as well as with NEPA and the CEQ’s Regulations Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA at 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508. In accordance with these regulations, the proposed project also must comply with other regulatory approvals. The following is a list of potential regulatory approvals that the proposed project may require; these will be discussed in greater depth within the EIS and the list may change or increase as the NEPA analysis proceeds. 5.1 FEDERAL • Clean Air Act (CAA) and CAA Amendments of 1990 • Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): Review of proposed flood protection components will require FEMA review for any potential changes to Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM). • Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management • Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands • Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice for Low Income and Minority Populations • HUD: The project is subject to the funding disbursement and Action Plan Amendment requirements stated in 79 FR 62182, published October 16, 2014 [Docket No. FR–5696–N–11]. Practicable alternatives will be identified and evaluated, as required by EO 11988 and 11990, in accordance with HUD regulations at 24 CFR Part 55.20 Subpart C, Procedures for Making Determinations on Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands. • HUD Air Quality Regulations (40 CFR Parts 6, 51, & 93) • HUD Contaminated and Toxic Substances Regulations (24 CFR Part 50.3[i] and 24 CFR Part 58.5[i][2]) • National Historic Presentation Act of 1966: Section 106 of the Act states that prior to the approval of the expenditure of any federal funds an evaluation must take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. • U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE): Permits for activities in waters of the US under USACE jurisdiction • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): Depending on project impacts to threatened/endangered species, Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act (1973) may be required. • US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA): General Conformity relating to the Clean Air Act requirements for federal actions may be required. 5.2 STATE • CTDEEP Land & Water Resources Division (LWRD) Dam Safety Permit: required for construction of floodwalls and landscape berms (levees). The Dam Safety permit application must demonstrate compliance with the factors for consideration under the Flood Management program. Specifically, the project must demonstrate that it is in the public interest, will not injure persons or property and complies with the National Flood Insurance Program. • CTDEEP, LWRD Permit for Diversion of Waters of the State pursuant to section 22a-368 of the CGS and section 22a-377(c)-1 of the RCSA: required for any collection and discharge of runoff, including stormwater drainage or skimming flood flows, from a watershed area of 100 acres or greater; relocation, retention, detention, bypass, channelization, piping, culverting, ditching, or damming of waters where the drainage tributary to such waters is 100 acres or greater; or the transfer of water from one distribution system to another where the combined maximum withdrawal from any source supplying the system or interconnected systems exceed 50,000 gallons during any 24hour period. 15 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT JUNE 2018 • CTDEEP, Permitting & Enforcement Division, General Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater and Dewatering Wastewaters Associated with Construction (GP-015): required for stormwater discharges from construction sites where one or more acres are to be disturbed. • CTDEEP, LWRD General Permit Registration Form: required for the discharge of stormwater and dewatering wastewaters from construction activities that result in disturbances of five or more acres. A stormwater pollution control plan, including measures such as erosion and sediment controls and post construction stormwater management, must be prepared. • CTDEEP LWRD, Long Island Sound, Dredging and Fill & Tidal Wetlands Permit: Construction, dredge, or fill below the mean high water line. • CTDEEP LWRD, Long Island Sound: 401 Water Quality Certification is required for any applicant for a federal license or permit who seeks to conduct an activity that may result in any discharge into navigable waters. • CTDEEP, Connecticut Coastal Management Act Consistency Review/Concurrence: Any action conducted by a state or federal agencies must be consistent with the Act’s policies. • CTDEEP, Air Emissions Permit: New Sources Review Stationary Sources of Air Pollution Permit Application. • CT State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Review: The CTSHPO will need to be consulted for the Project’s compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, considering the effects of projects on historic properties. • Certified as being in compliance with flood and stormwater management standards: Section 25-68d of the Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) and section 25-68h-1 through 25-68h-3 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA). • CT Call Before You Dig: Identification of utilities before performing any excavation. 5.3 LOCAL AND MUNICIPAL • Bridgeport Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4): Discharge permit associated with the reactivation of the little regulator stormwater outfall to Cedar Creek may be required. • City Building Permit: The Building Department issues permits and inspects work done to all buildings and structures. • City Electrical/Plumbing Permit: The Building Department issues permits and inspects work done to all buildings and structures. • City Street and Sidewalk Excavation Permit: The Public Facilities Department issues permits to perform street and sidewalk excavation. • City Sidewalk Permit: The Public Facilities Department issues permits for sidewalks. • City Public Right-of-Way Occupancy: The Public Facilities Department issues permits to occupy the public rightof-way. • City Planning and Zoning Commission Approval: Project may include zoning compliance and coastal site plan review. • City Sewer Extension Approval: Approval for extension of a proposed connection to the sewer system must comply with Sewer Extension Conditions. • City Council: Council resolution required for street discontinuance and/or acceptance for extension. • City Board of Police Commissioners: Commission resolution required for change of streets from one-way to twoway. Note: Not all permits may be necessary depending on the chosen alternative and final designs. 16 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT 6 JUNE 2018 SCOPE OF WORK Below is a discussion of the proposed sections of the EIS. The EIS document will consist of a description of the Proposed Action’s purpose and need, the proposed project, alternatives development and analysis, the public involvement efforts, a description of the existing conditions and affected environment, potential environmental impacts as a result of the Build Alternatives and No Action Alternative, and appropriate mitigation measures. 6.1 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS This section of the EIS will describe the technical analyses and public input that led from the initial concept designs to the selection of the Preferred Alternative. 6.1.1 ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT This section will describe the development of the Build Alternatives from the initial project concepts. It will also include a description of the concept screening process. This will include an explanation of how the screening criteria and metrics for those criteria were selected and how they were used to evaluate each of the Proposed Action’s concepts, ultimately leading to the recommendation of the Build Alternatives. 6.1.2 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Similar to the Concept Screening, this section will explain the Alternatives Analysis process that led to the recommendation of the Preferred Alternative. The Alternatives Analysis will begin with a review of the Build Alternatives – as well as the No Action Alternative - and their environmental impacts (to be analyzed within the discipline studies in the EIS, pursuant to 24 CFR 58.5), as well as a comparison of the ability of each to meet the project’s Purpose and Need. This section will summarize the Alternatives Screening process which, similar to Concept Screening, will consist of the evaluation of Build Alternatives within a more refined screening matrix. This screening process will lead to the recommendation of the Preferred Alternative. 6.2 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Throughout the course of this NEPA and CEPA processes, the proposed project’s Community Engagement Plan (CEP) will be implemented. The CEP is available on the Resilient Bridgeport website at www.resilientbridgeport.com. The project website also provides general information on the project and opportunities for the public to get involved in ongoing aspects of this NEPA process. The reader is referred to the website for more information on the proposed public involvement and outreach program for this proposed project. This section of the EIS will summarize relevant public involvement efforts associated with this NEPA/CEPA process. 6.3 TECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES Below is a description of the technical disciplines to be reviewed in the EIS/EIE. These sections represent the environmental analysis framework. Each technical discipline section will consist of a characterization of the affected environment, as it pertains to each discipline, followed by a detailed impact assessment for the Build Alternatives as well as the No Action Alternative. The impact assessments will identify impact intensity (i.e., no measurable impact, beneficial impact, or minor/major adverse impact) as well as direct and indirect impacts (i.e., impacts that occur as a direct result from the Proposed Action, or impacts that are caused by the Proposed Action but occur at a later time). The impact assessments will include temporary/ construction impacts as well as long-term impacts from project implementation. If impacts are identified, options for mitigation will be presented. Detailed Technical Environmental Studies (TES’s) will be prepared for disciplines as appropriate. These TES’s will be provided as appendices within the EIS document. In order to provide a succinct EIS document, a summary of this technical information will be provided for each discipline discussed below. The boundary of the Study Area is typically defined by the logical geographic termini, the project purpose and need, and the expected limits of potential impacts. Unless otherwise stated, the Study Area will be encompassed by the following 17 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT JUNE 2018 approximate boundaries: the Pequonnock River and Bridgeport Harbor to the east; the Northeast Corridor railroad to the north; Iranistan Avenue to the west; and Long Island Sound to the south. A Secondary Study Area will also be established to adequately address potential impacts that may occur beyond the primary Study Area. For example, the Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice disciplines rely on census data, some of which are obtained from census blocks and census tracts. These geographic census data levels may include areas outside of the abovedescribed area. In addition, a buffer of 150 feet beyond the Study Area boundary will be added for the Natural Ecosystems Study Area. This buffer is intended to cover the maximum Wetland Transition Area width associated with potential wetlands that might be identified beyond the Study Area boundary. Furthermore, depending upon the results of the flood model, the Secondary Study Area for some disciplines may be defined to include additional areas of study that may be impacted by the Project. In addition to the Study Area and Secondary Study Area, the project area will be defined to include the limits of disturbance where work is physically proposed. The project area will be further defined during the concept development and alternatives analysis phases. 6.3.1 LAND USE, ZONING, AND PUBLIC POLICY A brief development history and trends analysis of the project area will be presented, including a description of past and present land use, recent development trends, potential future growth induced by proposed new flood protections, and foreseeable development initiatives over the planning horizon. The planning horizon is typically defined as 30 years from the completion of the proposed project. Since the proposed project must be implemented by 2022, the planning horizon would extend through approximately 2050 for this analysis. Land use and zoning in the project area will be mapped and described, and the impacts of the Build Alternatives on these land uses will be characterized. The analysis will also identify open space (local, county, state, and federal parkland) through the use of GIS data layers and field verification. The analysis will also inventory current land uses and zoning regulations and consider the impacts on land use from growth potential from the flood control project and other foreseeable projects on the horizon. As part of this analysis, view corridors, building character, local landmarks and overall community character will be evaluated. Field reconnaissance surveys and interviews will be conducted to supplement and/or corroborate the findings of public documents, maps, and GIS data. The EIS will describe the existing and proposed future land use and zoning within the Study Area and examine the impacts of each of the Build Alternatives. This section of the EIS will examine each alternative’s consistency with the existing land uses as well as proposed land uses within the project area as described in local master plans (such as the University of Bridgeport Master Plan) and other redevelopment plans. This section will also evaluate the project alternatives’ consistency with local and regional land use policies. 6.3.2 SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS The socioeconomic analysis will include a baseline assessment of current demographic and economic data to better understand the current South End neighborhood. This assessment will identify and describe data on residential populations, ages, incomes, housing types, vacancy rates, and characteristics of the local economy. The principal issues of concern regarding socioeconomics are whether the proposed project would result in significant adverse social, economic, or demographic impacts within the Study Area. Economic impacts for the No Action Alternative will also be assessed. These impacts may include operating losses, lost wages, loss of tax revenue from flooded uninhabitable buildings, and the cost to restore damaged buildings. In addition, indirect impacts on the project area and regional economy will be assessed. Indirect impacts are those that are caused by the Proposed Action but may occur at a later point in time. Indirect impacts may result from changes in land use patterns, growth rate or population densities, or changes on the built environment from environmental resource areas. 6.3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE The Environmental Justice (EJ) analysis will focus on low-income, minority, and Hispanic communities pursuant to the requirements of Executive Order (EO) 12898. Under EO 12898, federal agencies are required to determine whether proposed actions (those that are undertaken directly by the agency or are funded or approved by the agency) would have a disproportionate adverse environmental impact on EJ populations. The major steps in the assessment process are as follows: • Identify the study area 18 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT JUNE 2018 • Compile population characteristics and identify locations with populations of concern for EJ (i.e. low-income and minorities) • Conduct public outreach • Identify adverse effects on populations of concern • Evaluate each considered alternative’s effects. The analysis will evaluate the presence of EJ populations based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 Census of Population and Housing, as well as data from the most recent American Community Survey. Demographic data will be aggregated on the census block, census block group and census tracts for the Study Area and will be compared to Fairfield County and Connecticut as a whole. The analysis of impacts from the Project’s Build Alternatives will follow the guidance and methods within the Council on Environmental Quality’s Environmental Justice Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act. (December 1997). An analysis of disproportionately high and adverse effects for each alternative will be prepared, and measures for reducing or mitigating the severity of these impacts, if any, will be presented. If necessary, final mitigation, minimization, or avoidance strategies to address any identified EJ concerns will be developed using input from the community, as appropriate. A project with disproportionately high and adverse effects to EJ populations may only be carried out if further avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are deemed not practicable. In determining whether a measure is “practicable,” the social, economic, and environmental effects of avoiding, minimizing or mitigating the adverse effects will be taken into account, and the rationale for findings will be documented in the EIS. The principal focus will be the existing minority and low-income populations in the study area. If any of the Build Alternatives have geographically broader potential impacts (e.g., traffic, air quality, noise), the study area for EJ analysis will be expanded. The EJ analysis will be conducted using the results from the land use, zoning, socioeconomic, air/noise, traffic, water/natural resource, construction, and visual/aesthetic analyses to determine the degree of any direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on EJ populations. 6.3.4 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (36 CFR 800), requires federal agencies to consider the impacts of their actions on historic properties. Historic properties are defined as above-ground districts, buildings, structures, landscapes, objects, as well as archaeological sites and districts that are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NR). Collectively, historic and archaeological properties are sometimes referred to as cultural resources. Properties identified as National Historic Landmarks (NHLs) are automatically included in the NR and so are subject to Section 106 (as well as other provisions that only apply to NHLs). Because this Project is being funded by the HUD, compliance with Section 106 must be demonstrated. 6.3.4.1 CONSULTATION The Section 106 process includes consultation between CTDOH (as the responsible entity for the lead federal agency, HUD), and federal agencies, the Connecticut State Historic Preservation Office (CTSHPO), representatives of local governments, and federally recognized Indian tribes that have ancestral or traditional relationships with the project area (36 CFR 800.2(a)(4)). The public and other stakeholders are also included in the consulting process. Consultation documents will be prepared in conjunction with CTDOH. The outcome of the consultation could result in the preparation of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or Programmatic Agreement (PA) among parties to avoid or minimize adverse effects if the project will have adverse effects on cultural or historic resources. The consultation documents will be distributed to all identified consulting parties early in the process to ensure that all consulting parties are actively involved in the Section 106 process. 6.3.4.2 DEFINITION OF THE AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS Upon review of the Project’s concepts and alternatives, an Area of Potential Effects (APE) will be established for both archaeological and historical resources. This APE will be refined through consultation with the CTSHPO upon the formulation of the Build Alternatives. The APE will include the geographical area within which the proposed Project may directly or indirectly cause changes to the character or use of historic properties. The APE for archaeological resources will be limited to the footprint of project-related ground disturbance, including access roads, construction staging areas, and geotechnical boring areas. The APE for above-ground historic resources includes actions that may result in direct and/or indirect impacts from the project, including visual impacts. The regulations implementing Section 106 require consideration of “possible historic properties not yet identified.” Data gaps will be identified, including areas of where the archaeological 19 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT JUNE 2018 sensitivity has yet to be assessed and above-ground properties for which NR-eligibility was not evaluated in prior studies. The specific studies to be conducted for archaeological and above-ground historic properties are summarized below. 6.3.4.3 DATA COLLECTION As part of the data-gathering task for archaeological and historic resources, several repositories will be visited to collect and review prior studies of the Project Area. Primary and secondary sources, prior historic and architectural surveys, archaeological resource reports, environmental studies, and historical maps will be reviewed to characterize the history and archaeology of the Project Area. The following data-gathering steps are anticipated to be conducted: documentary and site file research at the Dodd Research Center at the University of Connecticut located in Storrs; the CTSHPO, located in Hartford; the Office of the State Archaeologist (OSA), located in Storrs; review of historic maps and local histories available from the Connecticut State Library, located in Hartford; a review of files and information collected and maintained by other local libraries and repositories including the Bridgeport History Center at the Bridgeport Public Library, the Little Liberia exhibit at the Housatonic Community College; and review of online resources to inform the project’s land-use history. As part of this task, data will be collected on previously identified historic properties in the Project Area. Multiple National Register-listed districts known to exist within the Project Area include the Barnum/Palliser Historic District; the Marina Park Historic District; the Seaside Village Historic District; and the William D. Bishop Cottage Development Historic District. There are 5 individual historic properties listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NR): the Freeman Houses, Park Apartments, Seaside Institute, Seaside Park, and Tongue Point Lighthouse. As part of the data gathering, studies will be conducted to provide a baseline understanding of the following contexts: precolonial Native American and early historic-period use of the Project Area (archaeological), Maritime, Commercial, Residential, Institutional, Social/Ethnic, Industrial, Houses of Worship, Parks, Lighthouses, Docks, Wharves & Landfill, and Transportation. 6.3.4.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL (BELOW-GROUND) RESOURCES As part of the evaluation of archaeological resources, a Phase IA Archaeological Assessment will be conducted to address whether the project construction may affect buried resources. The APE will be stratified into areas of relative archaeological sensitivity based upon previously identified archaeological resources, the cultural history of the surrounding area, and a sitespecific land-use history of the Project Area. The results of the Phase IA survey will be summarized in a report that will be submitted to CTSHPO and will include recommendations for more intensive archaeological survey where warranted. The findings of this report will be summarized in the EIS/EIE. This study will be performed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior (SOI) Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716) and the CTSHPO’s Environmental Review Primer for Connecticut’s Archaeological Resources. All archaeological work will be conducted by and/or under the supervision of individuals who meet the SOI Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology (48 FR 44738-9). As part of the Phase 1A effort, the following will be conducted: • Synthesize background research conducted during data gathering to inform the archaeological sensitivity assessment. • Evaluate geotechnical boring data as it becomes available, to assess subsurface conditions vis-a-vis archeological resources and identify Existing Conditions. • Summarize contextual studies focused on both the precolonial and historic use of the Project Area. • Conduct a pedestrian reconnaissance to visually inspect Existing Conditions in the APE for evidence of archaeological sensitivity. The pedestrian survey will also identify areas of obvious disturbance with little to no archaeological potential. • Summarize areas of archaeological sensitivity and provide recommendations for future subsurface archaeological testing and/or monitoring in a technical report on Existing Conditions of archaeological resources and areas of archaeological sensitivity. 6.3.4.5 HISTORIC (ABOVE-GROUND) RESOURCES The historic (above-ground) resources analysis will consider whether construction of the Project would be likely to affect historic above-ground resources within the APE, either directly through construction activities or indirectly through alteration 20 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT JUNE 2018 of the physical context or setting of these resources; visual impacts will also be assessed. The following tasks will be undertaken as part of the above-ground resources analysis. • Synthesize background research to inform assessment of above-ground resources (Maritime, Commercial, Residential, Institutional, Social/Ethnic, Industrial, Houses of Worship, Parks, Lighthouses, Docks, Wharves & Landfill, and Transportation). • Summarize contextual studies focused on the historic use of the Project Area. • Conduct a pedestrian reconnaissance to visually identify Existing Conditions in the APE relative to historic resources. • Within the APE, identify and photograph extant National Register-listed properties as well as properties over 50 years of age that are potentially National Register-eligible. For purposes of this task, it is assumed that the survey may identify up to 50 properties that may be National-Register eligible, either individually or within districts. Provide sufficient information to justify a preliminary recommendation as to NR-eligibility. • Prepare illustrated report on Existing Conditions of historic properties and potential historic properties. • Assess potential effects of various project alternatives to National Register-listed and potential National Registerlisted properties. Identification of direct and indirect adverse effects on the historic properties in the Project Area is an important part of this analysis, as avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation of adverse effects to these resources is mandated under Section 106. • Develop designs that are in keeping with the SOI’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties in order to minimize the potential for adverse effects on historic properties. • If adverse effects are identified, potential mitigation measures will be recommended. As necessary, a memorandum of agreement (MOA) will be drafted for approval by the consulting parties. 6.3.4.6 PUBLIC OUTREACH Public outreach will be coordinated as required under Section 106, including the distribution of reports to the CTSHPO as well as interested and consulting parties. 6.3.5 URBAN DESIGN AND VISUAL RESOURCES The existing visual character and quality of the project area will be inventoried, described, and analyzed to establish baseline visual resources. Sensitive view corridors and visual resources within the Study Area, such as the waterfront and views of historic resources such as Seaside Park will be identified. Existing views will be used as the basis for photo-simulations. Potential impacts the Project may have on visual resources and viewers will be analyzed. As part of this analysis, the level of impact to these resources for each of the Build Alternatives will be determined. The study will also discuss practical design mitigation and enhancement elements for each alternative, in terms of construction and design-related mitigation measures related to bulk, height, scale, and resulting shadows. The discussion will be supported with photo-simulations at various views for each Build Alternative. Potential mitigation scenarios, such as design options to reduce potential impacts on aesthetic resources in the proposed project’s view shed, will be assessed and incorporated into the final photo-simulations. Given the nature of visual resource assessment, no analysis or simulation will be performed under the No Action Alternative, as no visual change would result. 6.3.6 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The Study Area is in a heavily developed urban setting with land uses ranging from residential to industrial. Contaminated soil is anticipated to be a concern during construction. No acquisitions of private land are anticipated as part of the Project; should it be determined that such acquisitions are required, further investigation into those properties may be warranted. No subsurface testing is included in this evaluation. The need for soil, sediment, and/or groundwater sampling will be determined based on the results of the hazardous waste screening. A reconnaissance of relevant portions of the Project Area and vicinities will be conducted to obtain a better understanding of the potential soil and groundwater contamination concerns. Additionally, historical aerial photographs for the Project Area and historical US Geological Survey (USGS) maps, as well as Sanborn fire insurance maps for the locations of the Build 21 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT JUNE 2018 Alternatives, will be reviewed to understand the history of potential contamination concerns in the Project Area. The properties identified as representing an environmental concern during the review process will be classified according to the ASTM International’s Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process Designation E 1527-13 terminology as follows: • Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) • Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC) • Controlled Recognized Environmental Condition (CREC) In addition, following the guidance provided by the Connecticut Department of Transportation Division of Environmental Compliance 2010 Task Based Contaminated Soil/Groundwater Scopes, a Task 110 Corridor Land Use Evaluation will be conducted. A Corridor Land Use Evaluation is conducted to determine the potential environmental risks associated with the current and former land uses within the Project Area. This information gathered in this process helps determine the likelihood that soil or groundwater contamination will be encountered during the Project. The Task 110 process includes a corridor windshield survey and a review of historic sources to determine the current and former uses of each parcel in the Project Area. Historic sources include Sanborn maps, aerial photographs, topographic maps, and city directories, in addition to a review of available information from the municipal assessors records and state and federal environmental databases. Based on the information gathered, each parcel will be assigned a relative environmental risk of low, moderate, or high, considering the potential likelihood that environmental impacts to the soil and/or groundwater at each parcel may be encountered during the Proposed Project. A report will be prepared summarizing the land use information gathered during the Task 110 process and identifying the risk designation. As the design of the project concepts and alternatives progresses and the locations and construction requirements for the project elements are further defined through the EIS process (i.e., the concepts are refined and the Build Alternatives are selected), the need for additional hazardous materials assessment, investigation, and analysis will be determined. Each Build Alternative will be evaluated relative to the identified risk levels of each parcel. The Build Alternative locations will be mapped along with the areas of potential soil and groundwater contamination. Alternative evaluation will be based on the remedial status of the parcels and the type and extent of the associated contamination. Based on the evaluation of the Build Alternatives, recommendations will be presented, potentially including additional site investigation, remediation/mitigation, alternative locations for the Build Alternatives, and Best Management Practices (BMPs), and the reasoning for the recommendations. 6.3.7 VIBRATION Under the Proposed Action the only improvements that would cause end state operational vibration concerns would be water pumps and generators to be used during emergencies only and traffic on newly elevated roadways. The emergency use does not require further analysis. In addition, due to the heavy, though short-term construction activities related to reconstruction within the Study Area, a construction-related vibration analysis will be performed. An appropriate vibration criteria to use for assessing operational and construction vibration in the community would be identified. HUD does not have any vibration-related guidelines or acceptability criteria. Vibration approach and criteria can be found in the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (2006). Two thresholds of vibration impact are considered, the first being potential human annoyance due to building vibration, and the second being potential physical damage to buildings due to excessively high vibration levels. Vibration criteria for human annoyance are provided in decibel units of vertical vibration velocity (VdB), while criteria for potential building damage is provided in units of inches/second for the peak particle velocity (PPV). Vibration levels in the community associated with the project will be predicted (modeled) at representative receptor locations, and evaluated for acceptability against the vibration criteria limits established above. WSP’s proprietary construction vibration model will be used to predict construction vibration levels in the community. The model takes into account the types and locations of heavy equipment to be used, the ground conditions between the vibration sources and the receptors, the land-use and structural integrity of the receptors, and the receptor’s coupling efficiency with the ground. Using this model, vibration levels associated with the various stages/phases of construction will be predicted and evaluated for compliance. If predicted construction vibration levels are anticipated to exceed the project’s vibration limits for either human annoyance or potential building damage, then mitigation measures will be considered and recommended for inclusion in the project’s 22 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT JUNE 2018 construction contracts as a comprehensive performance-based Construction Vibration Control Specification. Vibration mitigation measures could take the form of time and/or equipment restrictions, use of alternative techniques, receptor building reinforcement treatments, and a means of monitoring construction vibration levels to ensure contractor compliance. 6.3.8 NATURAL RESOURCES 6.3.8.1 FLOODPLAINS, WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN ZONES Relevant pre-existing data on natural resources in the Project Area will be gathered and/or reviewed, including State and Federal GIS databases of freshwater and coastal wetlands, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps, the best available floodplain maps from FEMA (Flood Insurance Rate Maps), geology maps, and soils maps to identify potential areas of concern and their associated constraints. The existing natural features within the Project Area, including the littoral zone, freshwater wetlands, flood hazard areas, the Mean High and Spring High Water elevations at the waterfront/shoreline and the intertidal/sub-tidal shallows zones, will be identified. Estuarine and marine wetlands are located along the edge of the project area, at Seaside Park’s interface with the water. Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands) requires federal activities to avoid adverse impacts to wetlands where practicable. Any wetlands present will be delineated along the shoreline of the Project Area and impacts, if applicable, due to a coastal flood risk reduction feature that may be proposed in the Build Alternatives. The potential impacts on natural resources will be assessed, including temporary construction effects. Consultation with CTDEEP or USACE will occur as appropriate. Mitigation for impacts to tidal waters and any freshwater wetlands will be identified based on the size and type of impacts, available options and likelihood of success. The projects will comply with Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) and HUD’s implementing regulations 24 CFR Part 55 since a portion of the study area is located within the 100-year floodplain, as identified on the FEMA FIRMs. The 8-step decision-making process (§55.20) will be followed to document noticing compliance, including identifying any alternatives to locating the Proposed Project in the floodplain, and any potential impacts associated with occupying the floodplain, along with proposed mitigation measures, as necessary (mitigation may be through project design). 6.3.8.2 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY A request will be sent for a database search to the CTDEEP; the USFWS Information, Planning and Conservation (IPaC) System for records of rare/threatened & endangered (T&E)/special concern species or their habitats in the Project Area will also be reviewed. If T&E/special concern species or habitat records are identified within the Project Area, verification as to whether those resources are present while performing a field assessment of the Project Area, to the extent practicable. These initial surveys will be focused on presence of suitable habitat specific to identified species, as well as any nesting of any migratory birds (i.e., Osprey nest) within the Project Area. Following the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), if the Responsible Entity determines that there is likely to be an adverse effect finding, formal consultation with USFWS will be initiated; the level of consultation will be based on analysis of the direct and indirect impacts of the project. If more detailed studies are required, the CTDEEP will be informed of the need for any studies. If data gaps are identified in the existing, available data, recommendations will be provided as to whether the data is critical for future analysis and how the missing information can best be obtained. The information gathered during the data review process will be included in the EIS/EIE and used in future phases, including the securing of any required permits. The existing natural resources within the proposed Project Area will be characterized in the EIS/EIE process. These resources will include upland and wetland/in-water habitats, ecological communities, and records of wildlife in the vicinity of the waterfront/shoreline and interior areas that have the potential to be affected by the proposed Build Alternatives. Impacts to terrestrial resources will be evaluated, such as vegetation clearing activities, as well as visual and/or noise effects on any wildlife in the Project Area. The need for state and/or federal coordination and approvals/permits will be identified, including project evaluation and compliance in terms of Executive Orders 11988 (Floodplain Management) and 11990 (Protection of Wetlands). 23 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT JUNE 2018 6.3.8.3 AQUATIC ECOLOGY Since there would be no in-water work as part of the proposed Project, no evaluation of direct impacts to aquatic ecology is necessary. However, the Proposed Project may result in construction activities along the shoreline and altered conditions that may indirectly impact aquatic ecology. A list of T&E marine species and essential fish habitat (EFH) will be obtained from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to make an effects determination. The effects determination will be based on potential impacts due to underwater noise exposure and increased runoff and sedimentation. The level of consultation with the NMFS will be appropriate to the effects determination. 6.3.9 HYDROLOGY AND FLOODING Existing hydrologic and hydraulic conditions of water bodies draining within or along the Project Area, as well as existing conveyance infrastructure, will be reviewed. Information from prior hydrologic and hydraulic modeling efforts; analyses; field studies performed in the waterways; and, information from previous reports, including appropriate FEMA Flood Insurance Studies and State/local flood surveys, will be used to document existing conditions. An improved conditions analyses will be used to determine potential impacts to existing conveyance infrastructure as a result of changes (if any), changes in flood storage, and induced flooding from each of the Build Alternatives. Potential impacts to storm water management and induced flooding due to loss of storage and hydraulic changes will be assessed and documented. In these cases, mitigation measures to eliminate or limit induced flooding will be identified. Potential coastal flooding impacts as a result of hydrodynamic changes in storm surge propagation will be assessed and documented. Potential impacts include re-direction of storm surge to other coastal areas and increased storm surge elevations. 6.3.10 WATER RESOURCES AND WATER QUALITY Existing conditions in waterbodies in and adjacent to the project area will be reviewed, including existing water quality data. Information from prior field studies performed in the waterways, and information from previous reports, as available, will be used to document existing conditions. Water quality standards and criteria applicable to the project area will be identified, including those related to storm water quality during the construction phase, as well as the operation and maintenance phase, of the proposed project. Construction impacts of each of the Build Alternatives will be analyzed, including those resulting from erosion and runoff. The potential impacts of temporary and localized increases in turbidity and suspended sediment concentrations caused by construction site and staging area disturbance will be addressed. This will include application of the criteria set forth by CTDEEP, Section 404(b)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 USC 1251 I), applicable water quality standards, and storm water discharge permits. Potential impacts on water quality during construction will be analyzed using methods such as the Revised Universal Soils Loss Equation and Soil Conservation District permit requirements. Construction impacts will be mitigated in accordance with an initial storm water management plan (best practices), which includes an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, developed in compliance with storm water discharge permit requirements. The major components of this plan will be summarized in the EIS. Post-construction storm water runoff water quality will be qualitatively evaluated under future conditions. Other operational phase water quality- impacts related to potential changes in the volume of combined sewage overflows (CSO) during storm events will be qualitatively evaluated. Potential effects and any beneficial impacts on water quality will be qualitatively evaluated, and will be considered in the context of required compliance with Storm Water Management regulations and associated adherence with runoff quality requirements, Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Standards, and storm water permitting. If mitigation is required, types of systems will be recommended for collecting storm water and removing suspended sediment and non-point source pollutants, such as oil and grease, prior to discharge. 6.3.11 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT This section of the EIS will include an assessment of the coastal zones in the Project Area and identify key resources. States with Federally approved coastal programs delineate a coastal zone consistent with common standards determined by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. This act is administered by NOAA to promote management of the nation’s coastal resources. It encourages the management of coastal zone areas and grants funding for maintaining coastal zone areas. 24 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT JUNE 2018 Potential impacts on coastal zones resulting from the Build Alternatives will be assessed and documented, and appropriate mitigation measures will be identified. Each of the Build Alternatives will be assessed with respect to compliance with applicable policies detailed in the Connecticut Coastal Management Program, which constitute the enforceable policies of the Connecticut Coastal Management Act as approved under the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (16 USC §§ 1451 et seq.). Mitigation requirements for unavoidable impacts to tidal wetlands and intertidal and subtidal shallows will also be addressed as part of Coastal Zone Management compliance and consultation with USACE will occur, if necessary. 6.3.12 INFRASTRUCTURE 6.3.12.1 STRUCTURES During the course of the Project, existing structures information such as spatial location, type and other applicable features will be collected and documented in CAD basemap. Requests for information will be sent to a variety of sources such as local, state and federal agencies, utility companies, developers, the University of Bridgeport, and others. This information will be screened to ensure that the most recent datasets are included in the CAD basemap. It should be noted that due to security reasons, information on certain critical infrastructure assets that will be assessed in the Project may not be available for public use. The data inventory for the project area may include, critical infrastructure buildings/facilities; power plants; utility substations; and residential and commercial buildings. The best available FEMA mapping will be utilized to understand the flooding risks from coastal storm surge for various types of buildings. The impacts of flooding due to precipitation and coastal flood on structures will be studied. A watershed-based analysis will be performed considering the potential for flood conditions due to precipitation within the Pequonnock River watershed and adjacent watersheds. Riverine flooding conditions will be integrated into a site-specific coastal and stormwater flood model to evaluate potential for flooding on the Pequonnock River along with coastal flooding. Flood elevations will be considered for present day, along with the future condition taking into consideration sea level rise. As new flood risk reduction measures are planned for the project, including elevated roadways, the impact of flooding to existing structures in both the base case (without flood risk reduction measures) and the conditions under the Build Alternatives will be evaluated. 6.3.12.2 UTILITIES The availability and location of the infrastructure in the Project Area will be documented. Infrastructure and utilities to be inventoried will include water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, combined sewers, electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, and fiber optic/cable. As the Proposed Action’s engineering progresses, additional information will be incorporated into the infrastructure evaluation. This information will be supplemented by field verification. Potential impacts to local infrastructure resulting from construction and operation of each of the Build Alternatives, as well as the No Action Alternative, will be identified and discussed, including service disruption, displacement, or relocation. The discussion will also include any planned improvements or expansion of infrastructure services, as well as the adequacy and capacity of the infrastructure to support any secondary and cumulative impacts resulting from the Proposed Action. Reasonable and practicable mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate significant project-induced impacts to infrastructure will be identified and discussed. 6.3.12.3 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION A schematic plan will be prepared for the local roads and transportation network that may be impacted by both the RBD Pilot Project at Marina Village and the flood risk reduction plans developed under this project for the east side of the South End. A network of up to ten (10) intersections, representing the roadways within the study area to be affected by the project, have been identified. The schematic plan will be a clear and simple presentation of the affected street segments and access routes used by various travel modes, including buses, pedestrians and bicycles. It will also display important city destinations that generate significant traffic demand such as parks, arenas, transportation hubs and major private and public offices. Intersection traffic volume data for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles will be manually collected for a typical weekday morning, afternoon and Saturday midday peak periods at each of the study intersections. Related traffic, signal and travel data will be obtained from city staff and transit/shuttle service providers. Transit data will include public transportation services and facilities in the Study Area. Transit (fixed route) data will be collected from Greater Bridgeport Transit (GBT) and compiled. The plan will include detailed traffic data (modal volumes by direction, ridership for transit) for each of travel modes. Input will be solicited from GBT, school bus service providers, emergency service providers, Input received from these stakeholders will also be presented in the schematic plans. 25 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT JUNE 2018 Synchro/SimTraffic traffic analysis models will be prepared for the project roadway network for use in evaluating the traffic impacts that can be expected during operations of each of the Build Alternatives. A similar detailed traffic analysis will be prepared to assess traffic performance during construction staging (including mitigation measures) for the worst case Build Alternative. The Synchro model will be developed based on the collected vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle data as well as roadway configuration (existing and future conditions), intersection and traffic control data received from City staff. The model will be used to generate appropriate traffic performance measures that can inform the decision process under the Feasibility Assessment stage and the Design Development stage. Relevant data will be included in the EIS/EIE. The development of future forecasted volumes (Future Design Year) for the Build Alternatives is essential to determining the level of service and overall impact of the proposed configuration changes. A future traffic volume network will be developed using background growth rates as per CTDOT traffic forecasting regional model and consideration for future planned development projects within the study area. The future forecasted volumes will then be imported into SYNCHRO model for traffic operational analysis. Practical roadway and traffic measures will be developed for the Build Alternatives to mitigate any traffic impacts resulting from the Proposed Project. Impacts to ingress/egress from the Study Area will also be examined as it relates to business impacts and emergency services. Construction activities under the Proposed Project will likely require the need to close off a travel lane, a travel direction or a street segment under certain stages of construction. Such traffic impacts will affect motorized and non-motorized traffic including buses (fixed route and school buses) and commercial vehicles, and will require mitigation to the extent possible. To that end, a Transportation Management Plan will be developed to ensure that affected users, including travelling public (passenger vehicles), trucks, as well as emergency services, are informed of traffic impacts related to construction work before and during commencement of construction activities, appropriate mitigation measures including BMPs will be developed and implemented in coordination with the City of Bridgeport to minimize inconvenience and delays, and schedules of lane or street closures are reviewed and approved by local officials beforehand. 6.3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES Community facilities and public services in the project area will be identified and described. Field reconnaissance surveys and interviews will be conducted to supplement or corroborate the findings of public documents and maps. Community facilities include schools, churches, libraries, institutional residences, hospitals, municipal buildings, senior/civic centers, and health care facilities, as well as public services such as police, ambulance, and fire stations. Any future or planned community facilities will also be identified to evaluate their potential interactions with the Build Alternatives. The potential impacts on community facilities and public services in the project area as a result of the Build Alternatives will be identified and analyzed. In addition, impacts to emergency services will also be assessed. This may include disruptions to emergency services caused by construction activities, as well as potential impacts caused by the implementation of the Proposed Action. Effects of the No Action Alternative will also be addressed. Reasonable and practicable mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate significant project-induced impacts related to community facilities and public services will be identified and discussed. 6.3.14 NOISE Excessive noise emissions from the project could occur during the end-state operational phase but are more likely to occur during the construction phase of the project. End-state noise sources might include water pumps, generators and emergency egress traffic. These would be temporary inconveniences that are exempt from regulatory requirements due to the emergency nature. Consideration will be given to changes in noise from traffic as a result of elevating roadways and screening will be performed to determine if detailed analysis is required. The Cadna-A model will be used to predict noise levels in the community (see additional description below). Construction noise could impact the community if not adequately assessed, controlled and managed. The construction noise approach and criteria in FHWA’s Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) and related handbook will be used. RCNM’s approach and criteria are derived from the successful construction noise control program that was implemented during the Central Artery/Tunnel Project in Boston, more commonly known as the Big Dig. Its noise criteria limits take into account land-use, time of day/night, and existing ambient noise levels. Noise limits are further differentiated by the type of construction noise being produced, be it continuous noise assessed with the L10 noise metric, or impulsive noise assessed with Lmax noise metric. Existing ambient noise levels will be measured simultaneously at up to five (5) representative community noise receptor locations. The measurements would involve deploying long-term automated noise monitors for a period of one week. The noise monitors would comply with calibration and accuracy requirements contained in ANSI Standard S1.4, and be 26 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT JUNE 2018 programmed to measure and digitally store noise data including Leq, Lmax, Lmin, L1, L10, L50, L90 and Ldn metrics in hourly intervals expressed in A-weighted decibels (dBA). The specific locations of the receptors will be selected prior to mobilization in concurrence with project officials. The results of the ambient noise monitoring exercise will be used to establish appropriate construction noise criteria limits at the representative receptor locations. Noise levels in the community associated with construction of the project will be predicted (modeled) at the representative receptor locations, and evaluated for acceptability against the noise criteria limits established above. The Cadna-A model, augmented with the construction equipment noise emission database from the RCNM model, will be used to predict construction noise levels in the community. The Cadna-A model is a sophisticated, three-dimensional, acoustical ray-tracing model that implements the algorithms contained in ISO Standard 9613 for the prediction and propagation of outdoor sound levels. This method of using Cadna-A augmented with RCNM is the current state-of-the-art method for predicting construction noise. Noise levels associated with the various stages/phases of construction will be predicted and evaluated for compliance. If predicted construction noise levels are anticipated to exceed the proposed project’s noise limits, then mitigation measures will be considered and recommended for inclusion in the proposed project’s construction contracts as a comprehensive performance-based Construction Noise Control Specification. Noise mitigation measures could take the form of time and/or equipment restrictions, use of alternative quieter techniques, use of noise barriers, mufflers and enclosures, installation of building soundproofing treatments, and a means of monitoring construction noise levels to ensure contractor compliance. 6.3.15 AIR QUALITY Bridgeport is located within Fairfield County, which is an ozone (O 3 ) nonattainment area, as well as a maintenance area for carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5 ). All other criteria pollutants are in attainment within Fairfield County. Existing air quality levels documented by CTDEEP and EPA monitoring stations will be addressed within the EIS/EIE. EPA regulations relating to the Clean Air Act (CAA) require that federal actions conform to the appropriate state, tribal or federal implementation plan (SIP, TIP, or FIP) for attaining clean air (Transportation Conformity or General Conformity). Mobile-sources of air emissions will not be created by the proposed project, although roadways will be realigned as part of the proposed project. As such, Transportation Conformity will be addressed with regards to the potential impacts of moving traffic closer to sensitive receptors (i.e., residential, commercial and institutional structures). This will include screening analyses for CO, PM 2.5 , as well as an MSAT qualitative analysis. It is currently assumed that detailed micro-scale modeling will not be required for Transportation Conformity. Furthermore, since the project will likely require federal permits, it will be subject to the General Conformity requirements. The General Conformity analysis will require that emissions of non-attainment pollutants conform to the SIP during construction and operation. The General Conformity analysis will examine potential operational emissions of the project (i.e., non-emergency stationary sources such as diesel-fueled pumps or generators), as well as the construction emissions of the project (which will be based upon construction schedule and equipment). Emission burdens will be compared to the applicable General Conformity thresholds for non-attainment pollutants (O 3 precursors, CO and PM 2.5 ). 6.3.16 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (GHG) AND CLIMATE CHANGE Global climate change is an important environmental challenge facing the world today, and human activity is one of the drivers affecting it. Research on this topic has been well-documented in reports by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (www.ipcc.ch), US Climate Change Science Program’s Science Synthesis and Assessment Products, and the US Global Change Research Program. This section will discuss the potential for the Proposed Project, through GHG emissions, to affect climate change, as well as the potential implications of climate change for the environmental effects of the Proposed Project. The Council on Environmental Quality released final GHG guidance for federal agencies on how to consider GHG in their NEPA reviews in August 2016. Although this final guidance was revoked in March 2017 by the current administration, the analysis of GHG continues to be included in many major transportation projects. The analysis conducted in this section will be an extension of the air quality analysis performed as part of the EIS/EIE. This section will document the emission levels of GHGs associated with the Proposed Project in the form of CO 2 e, or carbon dioxide equivalents. This section will estimate the CO 2 e emissions from the Proposed Project. A discussion of alternatives and their ability to effect GHG emissions will be presented. The EIS will include a review and assessment of mitigation 27 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT JUNE 2018 measures applicable to the Proposed Project, including calculations of the projected reduction in GHG emissions that could result from each mitigation measure. In addition, this section of the EIS/EIE will discuss whether the Proposed Project has the potential to increase the vulnerability of the area and ecosystem to specific effects of climate change, such as increasing sea level or causing ecological changes in the future. Existing inland and tidal flood conditions will be evaluated. 6.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS As required by NEPA and CEQ regulations (40 CFR Part 1508.7), the EIS analysis will include an examination of cumulative impacts associated with each of the Build Alternatives and the No Action Alternative. Cumulative impacts are incremental actions that, individually, may not represent a significant environmental impact; however, when taking into consideration with other past, current, proposed, or reasonably foreseeable actions with similar impacts at the same time and in the same space, the overall result may be significant. Often, individual actions do not result in adverse impacts; instead, adverse impacts arise from the aggregated incremental impacts of many separate actions over the course of time. The cumulative impacts analysis will identify other nearby past, current, proposed, and in-development independent projects. To determine which projects will be included in this analysis, CEQ’s guidance on cumulative impacts, which identifies the following steps, will be followed: • Step 1: Determine the significant cumulative impacts (direct and indirect) from the proposed project. For each discipline of study, determine which resources (natural as well as the built environment) would be affected. • Step 2: Establish the geographic scope. Determine the spatial extent of the impacts identified in Step 1. • Step 3: Establish the time frame for analysis. Determine how long the impacts identified in Step 1 would last (e.g., temporary during construction or permanent impacts). • Step 4: Identify other actions affecting the resources, ecosystems, and human communities of concern. Identify other projects within the geographic extent identified in Step 2 that have impacts on the resources identified in Step 1, whose own impacts would occur within the same timeframe as those resources established in Step 3. An identification of nearby past, current, proposed, and in-development independent projects will be conducted based on a desktop review of information from various online sources, such as news articles, local master plans, and planning documents, and consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies, including the City of Bridgeport’s Planning and Zoning Departments. In general, projects and activities within the immediate South End study area (south of I-95) would be used for the cumulative impacts analysis, as past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects within this area are most likely, in concert with the proposed project, to contribute to cumulative effects. The list of projects will be monitored and updated throughout the course of this NEPA process to include relevant projects that may contribute cumulative effects. The cumulative effects analysis will consider the probable environmental impacts from other projects and evaluate them in conjunction with the anticipated direct and indirect impacts from the considered Build Alternatives and the No Action Alternative. Focus will be on potential impacts to vulnerable communities, notably including EJ areas and locations that have historically received significant amounts of flooding. The proposed project’s impacts on flooding will be examined in conjunction with other independent projects’ impacts on flooding patterns (identified through the steps above). Particular attention will be paid to whether adjoining areas not protected by the proposed project will be adversely impacted by the proposed project and other independent projects. The analysis will consider other independent projects to help identify and address possible impacts. Ultimately, the analysis will compare the potential cumulative effects of each Build Alternative and the No Action Alternative on each technical resource area, informing the identification of a Preferred Alternative. If adverse cumulative impacts are identified, this analysis will identify potential mitigation measures that can be employed or incorporated into the design of the specific alternative to mitigate these effects. 6.5 CONCLUSION The EIS/EIE conclusion will consist of a summation of the findings of each of the technical studies, identifying and providing the reasoning for the recommendation of the Preferred Alternative. This recommendation will be based on the alternatives analysis conducted for each discipline, taking into consideration a balance between constraints, including environmental and community impacts identified in each discipline, the anticipated cost of each alternative, engineering feasibility, and the ability to meet the Project’s Purpose and Need. 28 APPENDIX A COMMENT RESPONSE DOCUMENT FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT JUNE 2018 Appendix A: Comment Response Document The Draft Scoping Document was published and presented on the project website (https://resilientbridgeport.com) and a Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2018 (FR–6082–N–01). The Public Comment Period began that day (February 27, 2018) and concluded on March 28, 2018. A Public Scoping Meeting was held on March 14, 2018 where material was presented to the community. Comments were received at that meeting. Additionally, comments were accepted through electronic mail throughout the comment period. Below are the responses to comments received during the comment period. Comments in their original form can be found in Appendix B. Oral Comments at Scoping Meeting on March 14, 2018 (from official transcript): Oral Comment 1: Good evening everyone. My name is Carmen Yeves and I'm a resident of the south end and I also represent the South End NRZ and I just want to -- we've given a letter of support to this in the past about the work that we've been doing here and we think that we've been very involved in the process. We understand that it's not an overnight process so that we know that it will take several years. What we are excited about is the opportunity to finally get some resiliency working construction finally started because of the floods that we've had before and how it's impacted our community. It's actually stopped new development from being able to – other projects to be able to build more locally, maybe rehabbing properties and things like that because, you know, houses need to be lifted off the grounds because of that. So we're excited about the opportunity to finally see some work going in because we believe that once one project and the study is completed and published, it will actually open up the opportunity as things are -- one project will build on the other and we know that it will take over time but we feel that this is a needed -- we as part of the NRZ have had meetings where we've had the group come and speak. We've done other events in other places where the community has been involved, including youth. They've done design, discussions that we've had that involve the youth, and we're looking forward to continuing that so we thank you for all that you've done and you have my support and the support of the NRZ going forward. Thank you. Response: Comment noted. Oral Comment 2: My name is Lydia Silvas, S-i-l-v-a-s. I am a resident in the Seaside Village and it's kind of hard to make a comment at the beginning of the evening when we haven't had our workshop yet, but one of the reasons that I wanted to come out tonight and take part in the design part of the workshop is my interest in the Resilience -the Resiliency Centers that we're going to be having and in some of the meetings that we've been having so far, it's been very open for the community to make suggestions about what we'd like to see that be and one of the things that I would like to throw out to the community is the idea of -- at one point there was a gentleman that came over from Holland and did a workshop that was open to all of us and he talked about the importance of monitoring and the importance of monitoring in cities that have -- that already have old and somewhat failing storm water systems like we have here in the South End and in other sections of Bridgeport, and it sparked the idea in my mind that if we could use the Resiliency Center as a center to use as a way to start a program to do monitoring and do it with the aid of maybe under his direction with the rest of the team that's working, the engineers that are working to set up a program to bring the community, volunteers in the community and maybe UB and Groundwork Bridgeport and other partners that have been involved in this program to start monitoring the south end as part of the Resilience program. It would give our youth and our university and anybody else in the community a chance to really take part in correcting our failing storm water systems down here and to set up now that we've got this big body of money, to set up a really educated and smart groundwork so that we can set our self up for future funding to maintain this kind of work over a period of years because it's going to take us a long time to really correct and maintain our situation down here. So I know tonight we're going to be talking about the Resilient Center and I just wanted to be able to throw that idea out. I don't know how or if that is something that the rest of the community is interested in but I wanted to use this time to just say what has been on my mind as a resident down here and thank you. Response: The Project Team is continuing outreach to the community to identify the priority attributes of the Resilience Hub. An online survey was conducted to supplement feedback received at the workshop on March 14, 2018. The team will work to incorporate the community’s input to the extent possible within the given cost constraints. It should be noted that funding can only be used for design and construction of a center and cannot be used for implementing new programs. Partnership opportunities are being explored to supplement the public funding. APPENDIX A 1 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT JUNE 2018 Comments Received Through Regular Mail or Email: David Simmons U.S Fish and Wildlife Services david_simmons@fws.org Comment: NEFO requests to submit a no comment for the subject ER. Response: Comment noted. Lynn M. Haig Director of Planning, Bridgeport Comment: City of Bridgeport has expressed their support for work produced by Resilient Bridgeport. Response: Comment noted. Maisa L. Tisdale The Mary & Eliza Freeman Center for History and Community freemancenterbpt-ct@yahoo.com Freeman Center Comment 1: Regarding the portion of the elevated roadway, berm, to be placed on Atlantic, crossing Main Street; homeowners in the historic cottages, prefer a tunnel with floodgates that would permit access to Seaside Park at ground level – as opposed to a landscaped and terraced hill that would bring Main Street to a dead end with no view of the water, or access to the park by car from Main Street. The tunnel should be reminiscent of those in Beardsley Park, another Olmstead Park, or overpasses on the Merritt Parkway. This is the preference of The Mary & Eliza Freeman Center for History and Community as well. Response: The design team is evaluating options to both connect Main Street to Seaside Park and terminate vehicular traffic but maintain bike and pedestrian continuity at Main Street and University for future discussions with the public. Freeman Center Comment 2: Making Main Street a dead-end would irreparably damage the cultural fabric and development aspirations of nearby historic neighborhoods adjacent to the park. For example, the origins of the William D. Bishop Cottage Development” (circa 1880) and the history of the Mary & Eliza Freeman Houses, both listed on the National Register of Historic Places are inextricably linked the nearby water, the Long Island Sound. Response: We appreciate your insight on the historic significance of the linkage to the water and acknowledge the potential impacts to changing Main Street to a dead-end. One of the goals of the project is to maintain connection to the water. In addition to exploring the option of dead-ending Main Street, the Project Team is investigating options to keep Main Street a through street while still maintaining the necessarily level of flood risk reduction. The primary through-street option under consideration would include ramping Main Street on both the north and south side of University Avenue to allow vehicular traffic to continue from northern Main Street over raised University Avenue and into Seaside Park. This option presents some design challenges that the project team is analyzing, such as maintaining the allowable grade (5%) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A tunnel option was evaluated based on this comment, but was not considered feasible due to issues of exacerbating flooding, failure rates of deployable measures, and requiring University Avenue to be elevated higher resulting in higher construction costs. Freeman Center Comment 3: Of about 36 structures that comprised Little Liberia, only the Freeman Houses survive on original foundations. Little Liberia (known as Ethiope then Liberia in the 1800s), a seafaring community of free people of color, boasted - a luxurious seaside resort hotel for wealthy Blacks (cited in a letter to Frederick Douglass), Bridgeport’s first free lending library, a school for colored children, businesses, fraternal organizations, and churches. Mary & Eliza Freeman were accomplished business women. When Mary Freeman died, the only Bridgeporter of greater wealth was legendary showman P.T. Barnum. The Freeman Houses are listed on the National Register of Historic Places for their significance to African Americans and Women. Research suggests that Little Liberia’s African and Native American residents sought to establish a free city for people of color - on American soil - during slavery in Connecticut and the US. Men brought their earnings home and then returned to sea. Many women owned or operated family business ventures; developed, owned and maintained property; and exercised leadership skills – at a time when women in the United States didn’t even have the right to vote. Little Liberia’s residents were outspoken APPENDIX A 2 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT JUNE 2018 advocates for human rights; and like-minded free people of color from around the country, indeed around the world, joined this 1800s community, and invested here. Bridgeport’s African and Native American seamen whaled, harvested oysters, sailed Caribbean packet vessels, worked the China trade, and even fought pirates! Then they returned to their secluded “garden” community on Bridgeport Harbor. The Long Island Sound provided food, a hallowed inlet for full immersion baptisms - and according to Shinnecock oral tradition, sheltered waters for night time canoe crossings on the Underground Railroad. Regarding Bishop Cottages, “Of primary interest is a collection of 35 small wood cottages (there were 36 originally), a planned workers’ development of the Bishop Realty Company. These cottages, with only minor differences, 1 ½ story Carpenter’s Gothic-style structures, L-shaped, with front- and side-gable roofs. They can be divided into 2 categories—those erected in the spring of 1880 and those built in the summer of 1881. The 1880 cottages line both sides of Atlantic Street. Unlike their later counterparts, the house on this block display differing variants. The William D. Bishop Cottage Development National Register District consists primarily of one of Bridgeport’s first extensive tract developments, a community planned especially to provide an innovative housing scheme for lower-income workers. It can be said almost with certainty to be an important work of the Palliser Brothers, a Bridgeport architectural firm until 1882 which was instrumental in elevating the style of workingmen’s architecture to a level equal to the mainstream of late-Victorian taste. His South End holdings were in an area considered at the time to be ideal for low-income housing – in close proximity to both factories and Seaside Park, which provided opportunities for recreation for those unable to afford carriages to escape the city, yet in an area where land prices were still relatively inexpensive.” PT Barnum wrote the following: The horse railroad is to be extended to a convenient distance and all for a mere trifle can avail themselves of the privilege of the park. The intention is to make it the resort of this class of citizens, land being cheaper in this part of town, houses of cheaper rent will be put up, and those of moderate circumstances will be better provided for than they have ever been before. Rich and poor alike are interested in this movement, and let all classes as one man join in rendering every facility to ensure complete success. -Bridgeport Standard, October 7, 1865. Local residents chose to buy these and other historic homes nearby because of they would have access to the park. The elderly, mothers with children, people walking dogs, and riding bicycles use this route to enter the park. Owners consider their proximity the Seaside Park and the vista as seen from Main Street critical to the value of their homes, and important as a car route to carry disabled relatives to the Park. Response: Comment noted. Linda Brunza CT Department of Energy & Environmental Protection (DEEP) Linda.Brunza@ct.gov DEEP Comment 1: The Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) has received the Notice of Scoping by the Department of Housing for the National Disaster Resilience Projects in Bridgeport. An Environmental Impact Evaluation will be completed to analyze the potential environmental and social effects of the projects being proposed to improve coastal and social resiliency. The following comments are submitted for your consideration. Response: CTDOH plans to prepare a NEPA EIS that will also serve as an EIE that meets CEPA requirements. DEEP Comment 2: Flood Management The proposed activities that will be undertaken under the Rebuild by Design pilot project must be certified as being in compliance with flood and stormwater management standards and receive approval from DEEP, (i.e., the 2.5 acre stormwater park, reconstruction of Johnson & Columbia Streets, and stormwater improvements along Iranistan Avenue). These standards are specified in section 25-68d of the Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) and section 2568h-1 through 25-68h-3 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA). A Dam Safety Permit will be required for the Flood Risk Reduction component of the project which includes the construction of floodwalls and landscape berms (levees). In accordance with section 22a-403(b) of the CGS, Flood Management Certifications are not required when a Dam Safety permit is required. Although a flood management certification will not be required for the construction of the levees, the Dam Safety permit application must demonstrate compliance with the factors for consideration under the Flood Management program. Specifically, the project must demonstrate that it is in the public interest, will not injure persons or property and complies with the National Flood Insurance Program. Response: The RBD pilot project will comply with flood, stormwater management, and flood management standards. Language will be added to Section 5.2 of the Scoping Report and the requirements addressed in the DEIS. A Dam Safety Permit will be obtained when the flood risk reduction component of the project is at the appropriate APPENDIX A 3 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT JUNE 2018 level of design and the project will demonstrate it is in the public interest and will not injure persons or property. FEMA accreditation is a specified goal of the project. DEEP Comment 3: Flood Management State policy regarding floodplain development is articulated in section 25-68d (b)(4) of the CGS: “The proposal promotes long-term non-intensive floodplain uses and has utilities located to discourage floodplain development.” In order to be certified, a proposal must be determined to be a non-intensive use of the floodplain. The determination of whether a specific proposal is considered non-intensive requires examination of numerous factors including, but not limited to, the existing state of the floodplain and its natural resources, the types of uses proposed for the floodplain area, the design of the entire proposal and the extent of encroachment into the floodplain, and the availability of alternatives to siting within the floodplain. Construction of the levees does not promote long term non-intensive floodplain uses as defined by the statute. Therefore, this aspect of the project does not meet section 25-68(b)(4) of the CGS and is considered an intensive use of the floodplain. Normally, this would require an exemption from the flood statutes; however, since a dam safety permit is required, flood management certification is not needed. Therefore the criteria for flood management certification will be addressed through the dam safety application. Response: Comment noted. DEEP Comment 4: Flood Management With regard to the proposed high hazard dam to meet flood management certification requirements and dam safety design storm requirements, levees must satisfy the highest of the following criteria: (1) be accredited by FEMA, to withstand the 100-year tidal flood plus the amount of freeboard required by FEMA so that the area behind the levee can be designated as “area protected by a levee” and (2) the design needs to pass the 500-year coastal flood factoring in sea level rise. For more information or questions on Flood Management, please contact the Jeff Caiola with the Land and Water Resources Division at 860-424-4162. Response: Comment noted. One of the project’s goals is to be accredited by FEMA. The project team has met with FEMA to understand their requirements and review process. Similarly, it is anticipated that the design will exceed the 500-year coastal flood (11.3 ft NAVD88) factoring in sea level rise by targeting a current design elevation that incorporates the necessary considerations to be accredited by FEMA (i.e., wave overtopping and wave runup) and 2.5 feet of sea level rise. DEEP Comment 5: Flood Management Also, be advised that the Dam Safety application must address potential adverse impacts to structures located outside the berm. In addition, there are several potential pitfalls with building a flood control levee in a developed area. Existing storm and sanitary sewers and other underground utilities are located under the proposed levee. The underground utilities and their intersections with the levee will require special attention during the design process. The levee shall be designed so as to prevent seepage under the flood retarding structure. For Dam Safety permit information, please contact Peter Spangenberg at 860-424-3870 or Jennifer Perry at 860-424-3802. Response: Efforts will be made to minimize the potential adverse impacts to structures located outside the proposed berm. The project team is aware of the requirements of the Dam Safety application and the issues with work within developed area, particularly one with large energy providers. The design process currently underway is making every effort to avoid conflicts with the underground utilities and develop appropriate design solutions where conflicts cannot be avoided. DEEP Comment 6: Coastal Management The proposed project is within Connecticut's coastal boundary as defined by section 22a-94 of the CGS and is subject to the provisions of sections 22a-90 through 22a-112 of the Connecticut Coastal Management Act (CCMA). Prior to a Federal action, including the granting of funds directly affecting the coastal zone, a determination of the consistency of such action with Connecticut's approved Coastal Management Program must be made pursuant to 15 CFR 930. For further information concerning coastal consistency reviews, contact the office at 860-424-3019. Coastal consistency review forms can be downloaded from the DEEP website: Coastal Consistency, Federal and State. APPENDIX A 4 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT JUNE 2018 Response: Comment noted. The project team will work with DEEP to address requirements of consistency with Connecticut’s Coastal Management Program as part of the DEIS process. DEEP Comment 7: Coastal Management Coastal management concerns which must be addressed in future phases of the project planning process are: avoidance or mitigation of potential flooding threats, particularly for any residential-type uses that might be proposed within the coastal flood hazard area; displacement of existing water-dependent uses, if any such uses exist and do not adversely affect coastal resources, by non water-dependent uses; the potential mobilization of pollutants in contaminated soils at former/current waterfront industrial sites; and appropriate use of urban retrofit stormwater best management practices, wherever possible. Response: Comment noted. The project planning is addressing potential flooding threats and avoidance and mitigation measures will be identified in the DEIS. DEEP Comment 8: Coastal Management The project, or portions thereof, can be considered to be a municipal improvement according to section 8-24 of the CGS. Therefore, a Coastal Site Plan Review, in accordance with sections 22a-105 through 22a-109 of the CGS, must be included in the review by the local planning commission. Response: Comment noted. DEEP Comment 9: Coastal Management Before a building permit can be granted for this project, the local building inspector must certify that the Coastal Site Plan Review requirements pursuant to sections 22a-105 through 22a-109 of the CGS have been met. Response: Comment noted. DEEP Comment 10: Coastal Management If local planning and zoning approvals, variances or building permits are required for this project, the Coastal Site Plan Review requirements of sections 22a-105 through 22a-110 of the CGS would be applicable. In accordance with section 22a-109(b), minor additions to or alterations of existing buildings may be exempt from these requirements. The municipal planning and zoning commission or designated zoning official should be consulted regarding this matter. Response: Comment noted. The Coastal Site Plan Review requirements will be met and the Bridgeport Planning and Zoning Commission will be consulted. DEEP Comment 11: Water Diversion Part of the Resilient Bridgeport project includes addressing how stormwater flows in the South End. Any collection and discharge of runoff, including stormwater drainage or skimming flood flows, from a watershed area of 100 acres or greater; relocation, retention, detention, bypass, channelization, piping, culverting, ditching, or damming of waters where the drainage tributary to such waters is 100 acres or greater; or the transfer of water from one distribution system to another where the combined maximum withdrawal from any source supplying the system or interconnected systems exceed 50,000 gallons during any 24-hour period, may require a permit from the Land and Water Resources Division for the diversion of waters of the State pursuant to section 22a-368 of the CGS and section 22a-377(c)-1 of the RCSA. For further information please contact Jeff Caiola with the Land and Water Resources Division at 860-424-4162. Response: Comment noted. The DEIS will address anticipated permit requirements. DEEP Comment 12: Threatened and Endangered Species The Natural Diversity Database maps represent the approximate locations of species listed by the State, pursuant to section 26-306 of the CGS, as endangered, threatened or of special concern. The maps are a pre-screening tool to identify potential impacts to state listed species. Portions of this project fall within one of these areas. The applicant is required to submit a Request for Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) State Listed Species Review Form (DEEP- APPENDIX A 5 FINAL SCOPING DOCUMENT JUNE 2018 APP-007) and all required attachments, including maps, to the NDDB for further review. Additional information concerning NDDB reviews and the request form may be found on-line at: NDDB Requests. Response: The NDDB request will be submitted and the information used to inform the terrestrial species technical study and EIS. DEEP Comment 13: Stormwater During Construction Stormwater discharges from construction sites where one or more acres are to be disturbed, regardless of project phasing, require a permit from the Permitting & Enforcement Division. The General Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater and Dewatering Wastewaters Associated with Construction Activities (DEEP-WPED-GP-015) will cover these discharges. For projects disturbing five or more acres, registration describing the site and the construction activity must be submitted to DEEP prior to the initiation of construction. A stormwater pollution control plan, including measures such as erosion and sediment controls and post construction stormwater management, must be prepared. A goal of 80 percent removal of total suspended solids from the stormwater discharge shall be used in designing and installing post-construction stormwater management measures. The general permit also requires that post-construction control measures incorporate runoff reduction practices, such as LID techniques, to meet performance standards specified in the permit. Response: Comment noted. These permits will be added to Section 5.2 of the Final Scoping Document and identified in the DEIS. DEEP Comment 14: Stormwater During Construction The construction stormwater general permit dictates separate compliance procedures for Locally Approvable projects and Locally Exempt projects (as defined in the permit). Locally Exempt construction projects disturbing over 1 acre must submit a registration form and Stormwater Pollution Control Plan (SWPCP) to DEEP. Locally Approvable construction projects with a total disturbed area of one to five acres are not required to register with DEEP provided the development plan has been approved by a municipal land use agency and adheres to local erosion and sediment control land use regulations and the CT Guidelines for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control. Locally Approvable construction projects with a total disturbed area of five or more acres must submit a registration form to DEEP. This registration shall include a certification by a Qualified Professional who designed the project and a certification by a Qualified Professional or regional Conservation District who reviewed the SWPCP and deemed it consistent with the requirements of the general permit. The SWPCP for Locally Approvable projects is not required to be submitted to DEEP unless requested. For further information, contact the division at 860-4243018. A copy of the general permit as well as registration forms may be downloaded at: Construction Stormwater GP. Response: Comment noted. These requirements will be identified in the DEIS. APPENDIX A 6 APPENDIX COMMENTS 79 Elm Street • Hartford, CT 06106-5127 www.ct.gov/deep Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer To: Hermia Delaire, Program Manager, CDBG Disaster Recovery Programs Department of Housing, 505 Hudson Street, Hartford CT 06106 From: Linda Brunza- Environmental Analyst Telephone: 860-424-3739 Date: 4/3/2018 Email: Linda.Brunza@ct.gov Subject: Scoping Notice for Resilient Bridgeport: National Disaster Resilience and Rebuild by Design Projects The Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) has received the Notice of Scoping by the Department of Housing for the National Disaster Resilience Projects in Bridgeport. An Environmental Impact Evaluation will be completed to analyze the potential environmental and social effects of the projects being proposed to improve coastal and social resiliency. The following comments are submitted for your consideration. Flood Management The proposed activities that will be undertaken under the Rebuild by Design pilot project must be certified as being in compliance with flood and stormwater management standards and receive approval from DEEP, (i.e., the 2.5 acre stormwater park, reconstruction of Johnson & Columbia Streets, and stormwater improvements along Iranistan Avenue). These standards are specified in section 25-68d of the Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) and section 25-68h-1 through 25-68h-3 of the Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA). A Dam Safety Permit will be required for the Flood Risk Reduction component of the project which includes the construction of floodwalls and landscape berms (levees). In accordance with section 22a-403(b) of the CGS, Flood Management Certifications are not required when a Dam Safety permit is required. Although a flood management certification will not be required for the construction of the levees, the Dam Safety permit application must demonstrate compliance with the factors for consideration under the Flood Management program. Specifically, the project must demonstrate that it is in the public interest, will not injure persons or property and complies with the National Flood Insurance Program. State policy regarding floodplain development is articulated in section 25-68d (b)(4) of the CGS: “The proposal promotes long-term non-intensive floodplain uses and has utilities located to discourage floodplain development.” In order to be certified, a proposal must be determined to be a non-intensive use of the floodplain. The determination of whether a specific proposal is considered non-intensive requires examination of numerous factors including, but not limited to, the existing state of the floodplain and its natural resources, the types of uses proposed for the floodplain area, the design of the entire proposal and the extent of encroachment into the floodplain, and the availability of alternatives to siting within the floodplain. Construction of the levees does not promote long term non-intensive floodplain uses as defined by the statute. Therefore, this aspect of the project does not meet section 25-68(b)(4) of the CGS and is considered an intensive use of the floodplain. Normally, this would require an exemption from the flood statutes; however, since a dam safety permit is required, flood management certification is not needed. Therefore the criteria for flood management certification will be addressed through the dam safety application. With regard to the proposed high hazard dam to meet flood management certification requirements and dam safety design storm requirements, levees must satisfy the highest of the following criteria: (1) be accredited by FEMA, to withstand the 100-year tidal flood plus the amount of freeboard required by FEMA so that the area behind the levee can be designated as “area protected by a levee” and (2) the design needs to pass the 500-year coastal flood factoring in sea level rise. For more information or questions on Flood Management, please contact the Jeff Caiola with the Land and Water Resources Division at 860-424-4162. Also, be advised that the Dam Safety application must address potential adverse impacts to structures located outside the berm. In addition, there are several potential pitfalls with building a flood control levee in a developed area. Existing storm and sanitary sewers and other underground utilities are located under the proposed levee. The underground utilities and their intersections with the levee will require special attention during the design process. The levee shall be designed so as to prevent seepage under the flood retarding structure. For Dam Safety permit information, please contact Peter Spangenberg at 860-424-3870 or Jennifer Perry at 860-424-3802. Coastal Management The proposed project is within Connecticut's coastal boundary as defined by section 22a-94 of the CGS and is subject to the provisions of sections 22a-90 through 22a-112 of the Connecticut Coastal Management Act (CCMA). Prior to a Federal action, including the granting of funds directly affecting the coastal zone, a determination of the consistency of such action with Connecticut's approved Coastal Management Program must be made pursuant to 15 CFR 930. For further information concerning coastal consistency reviews, contact the office at 860-424-3019. Coastal consistency review forms can be downloaded from the DEEP website: Coastal Consistency, Federal and State. Coastal management concerns which must be addressed in future phases of the project planning process are: avoidance or mitigation of potential flooding threats, particularly for any residentialtype uses that might be proposed within the coastal flood hazard area; displacement of existing water-dependent uses, if any such uses exist and do not adversely affect coastal resources, by non water-dependent uses; the potential mobilization of pollutants in contaminated soils at former/current waterfront industrial sites; and appropriate use of urban retrofit stormwater best management practices, wherever possible. The project, or portions thereof, can be considered to be a municipal improvement according to section 8-24 of the CGS. Therefore, a Coastal Site Plan Review, in accordance with sections 22a105 through 22a-109 of the CGS, must be included in the review by the local planning commission. Before a building permit can be granted for this project, the local building inspector must certify that the Coastal Site Plan Review requirements pursuant to sections 22a-105 through 22a-109 of the CGS have been met. If local planning and zoning approvals, variances or building permits are required for this project, the Coastal Site Plan Review requirements of sections 22a-105 through 22a-110 of the CGS would be applicable. In accordance with section 22a-109(b), minor additions to or alterations of existing buildings may be exempt from these requirements. The municipal planning and zoning commission or designated zoning official should be consulted regarding this matter. Water Diversion Part of the Resilient Bridgeport project includes addressing how stormwater flows in the South End. Any collection and discharge of runoff, including stormwater drainage or skimming flood flows, from a watershed area of 100 acres or greater; relocation, retention, detention, bypass, channelization, piping, culverting, ditching, or damming of waters where the drainage tributary to such waters is 100 acres or greater; or the transfer of water from one distribution system to another where the combined maximum withdrawal from any source supplying the system or interconnected systems exceed 50,000 gallons during any 24-hour period, may require a permit from the Land and Water Resources Division for the diversion of waters of the State pursuant to section 22a-368 of the CGS and section 22a-377(c)-1 of the RCSA. For further information please contact Jeff Caiola with the Land and Water Resources Division at 860-424-4162. Threatened and Endangered Species The Natural Diversity Database maps represent the approximate locations of species listed by the State, pursuant to section 26-306 of the CGS, as endangered, threatened or of special concern. The maps are a pre-screening tool to identify potential impacts to state listed species. Portions of this project fall within one of these areas. The applicant is required to submit a Request for Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) State Listed Species Review Form (DEEP-APP-007) and all required attachments, including maps, to the NDDB for further review. Additional information concerning NDDB reviews and the request form may be found on-line at: NDDB Requests. Stormwater During Construction Stormwater discharges from construction sites where one or more acres are to be disturbed, regardless of project phasing, require a permit from the Permitting & Enforcement Division. The General Permit for the Discharge of Stormwater and Dewatering Wastewaters Associated with Construction Activities (DEEP-WPED-GP-015) will cover these discharges. For projects disturbing five or more acres, registration describing the site and the construction activity must be submitted to DEEP prior to the initiation of construction. A stormwater pollution control plan, including measures such as erosion and sediment controls and post construction stormwater management, must be prepared. A goal of 80 percent removal of total suspended solids from the stormwater discharge shall be used in designing and installing post-construction stormwater management measures. The general permit also requires that post-construction control measures incorporate runoff reduction practices, such as LID techniques, to meet performance standards specified in the permit. The construction stormwater general permit dictates separate compliance procedures for Locally Approvable projects and Locally Exempt projects (as defined in the permit). Locally Exempt construction projects disturbing over 1 acre must submit a registration form and Stormwater Pollution Control Plan (SWPCP) to DEEP. Locally Approvable construction projects with a total disturbed area of one to five acres are not required to register with DEEP provided the development plan has been approved by a municipal land use agency and adheres to local erosion and sediment control land use regulations and the CT Guidelines for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control. Locally Approvable construction projects with a total disturbed area of five or more acres must submit a registration form to DEEP. This registration shall include a certification by a Qualified Professional who designed the project and a certification by a Qualified Professional or regional Conservation District who reviewed the SWPCP and deemed it consistent with the requirements of the general permit. The SWPCP for Locally Approvable projects is not required to be submitted to DEEP unless requested. For further information, contact the division at 860-424-3018. A copy of the general permit as well as registration forms may be downloaded at: Construction Stormwater GP. Thank you for the opportunity to review this project. These comments are based on the reviews provided by relevant staff and offices within DEEP during the designated comment period. They may not represent all applicable programs within DEEP. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions concerning these comments. cc: Robert Hannon, DEEP/ Office of Policy, Planning and Program Development Jeff Caiola, DEEP/ Land & Water Resources Jennifer Perry, DEEP/ Dam Safety Peter Spangenberg, DEEP/ Dam Safety Robin Blum, DEEP/ Natural Diversity Database City ofBrI'dgeport OFFICE OF PLANNING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Margaret E. Morton Government Center 999 Broad Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604 JOSEPH P. GANIM THOMAS GILL Mayor Director March 23,2018 Mr. David Kooris Connecticut Department of Housing 505 Hudson Street, 2"d Floor Hartford, Connecticut 06106 RE: Resilient Bridgeport NEPA Comments Dear Mr. Kooris, On behalf of the City of Bridgeport I am expressing support for the design work that has been produced by the Resilient Bridgeport group. Under the leadership of David Kooris there has been a substantial amount of public outreach and public input, as well as coordination with integral property owners and the City of Bridgeport. The designs are thorough and thoughtful, carefully weighing the needs of the neighborhood, impacts to properties, and overall project benefits. These improvements will not only have immediate benefits such as reducing insurance premiums and significantly reducing or eliminating flooding during storm events, but also far-reaching benefits such as opening up redevelopment opportunities that have long been tempered in this flood zone. The City of Bridgeport wholeheartedly supports Draft Scoping Document for the Environmental Impact Statement. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important project. Regards, (MW Haig, AICP Director of Planning City of Bridgeport 34 Thu 3.5152013 9:25 art-1 KD Kooi'is, David a DavidKoorist??Jctgow FW: ER leDlDD, Resilient Bridgeport: National Disaster Resilience and Rebuild by Design Projects: Bridgeport, To 0'v'v'es'rnoutli. Nicole 0 1'r'ou forwarded this message on 9:31 AM. {Diane Lazinskw?iiosooigow Cc: David Simmons cdavid simmens?'ihwsgove Subject: ER IBIDIDD, Resilient Bridgeport: National Disaster Resilience and Rebuild by Design Projec?, Bridgeport, CT NEFO's David Simmons has requested that I submit a no comment for the subject ER. Jeannine Dube Secretary: New England Field Of?ce Fish and Wildlife Service Commercial St, Suite Concord: NH 03301 603?223?2541 "And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make-" Paul From: To: Subject: Date: Van Metre, Rachel Van Metre, Rachel RE: Scoping Hearing Comments Tuesday, April 24, 2018 4:57:26 PM From: Maisa L. Tisdale [mailto:freemancenterbpt-ct@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 5:03 PM To: info@resilientbridgeport.com Subject: Scoping Hearing Comments   These brief but passionate comments refer to the scoping document as articulated at the March 14, 2018 Public Hearing and Design Workshop.   Regarding the portion of the elevated roadway, berm, to be placed on Atlantic, crossing Main Street; homeowners in the historic cottages, prefer a tunnel with floodgates that would permit access to Seaside Park at ground level – as opposed to a landscaped and terraced hill that would bring Main Street to a dead end with no view of the water, or access to the park by car from Main Street. The tunnel should be reminiscent of those in Beardsley Park, another Olmstead Park, or overpasses on the Merritt Parkway. This is the preference of The Mary & Eliza Freeman Center for History and Community as well.   Making Main Street a dead-end would irreparably damage the cultural fabric and development aspirations of nearby historic neighborhoods adjacent to the park. For example, the origins of the William D. Bishop Cottage Development” (circa 1880) and the history of the Mary & Eliza Freeman Houses, both listed on the National Register of Historic Places are inextricably linked the nearby water, the Long Island Sound.   Of about 36 structures that comprised Little Liberia, only the Freeman Houses survive on original foundations. Little Liberia (known as Ethiope then Liberia in the 1800s), a seafaring community of free people of color, boasted - a luxurious seaside resort hotel for wealthy Blacks (cited in a letter to Frederick Douglass), Bridgeport’s first free lending library, a school for colored children, businesses, fraternal organizations, and churches. Mary & Eliza Freeman were accomplished business women. When Mary Freeman died, the only Bridgeporter of greater wealth was legendary showman P.T. Barnum. The Freeman Houses are listed on the National Register of Historic Places for their significance to African Americans and Women.   Research suggests that Little Liberia’s African and Native American residents sought to establish a free city for people of color - on American soil - during slavery in Connecticut and the US. Men brought their earnings home and then returned to sea. Many women owned or operated family business ventures; developed, owned and maintained property; and exercised leadership skills – at a time when women in the United States didn’t even have the right to vote. Little Liberia’s residents were outspoken advocates for human rights; and like-minded free people of color from around the country, indeed around the world, joined this 1800s community, and invested here.   Bridgeport’s African and Native American seamen whaled, harvested oysters, sailed Caribbean packet vessels, worked the China trade, and even fought pirates!  Then they returned to their secluded “garden” community on Bridgeport Harbor. The Long Island Sound provided food, a hallowed inlet for full immersion baptisms - and according to Shinnecock oral tradition, sheltered waters for night time canoe crossings on the Underground Railroad.   Regarding Bishop Cottages, “Of primary interest is a collection of 35 small wood cottages (there were 36 originally), a planned workers’ development of the Bishop Realty Company. These cottages, with only minor differences, 1 ½ story Carpenter’s Gothic-style structures, L-shaped, with front- and side-gable roofs. They can be divided into 2 categories—those erected in the spring of 1880 and those built in the summer of 1881. The 1880 cottages line both sides of Atlantic Street. Unlike their later counterparts, the house on this block display differing variants. The William D. Bishop Cottage Development National Register District consists primarily of one of Bridgeport’s first extensive tract developments, a community planned especially to provide an innovative housing scheme for lower-income workers. It can be said almost with certainty to be an important work of the Palliser Brothers, a Bridgeport architectural firm until 1882 which was instrumental in elevating the style of workingmen’s architecture to a level equal to the mainstream of late-Victorian taste. His South End holdings were in an area considered at the time to be ideal for low-income housing – in close proximity to both factories and Seaside Park, which provided opportunities for recreation for those unable to afford carriages to escape the city, yet in an area where land prices were still relatively inexpensive.”   PT Barnum wrote the following:   The horse railroad is to be extended to a convenient distance and all for a mere trifle can avail themselves of the privilege of the park. The intention is to make it the resort of this class of citizens, land being cheaper in this part of town, houses of cheaper rent will be put up, and those of moderate circumstances will be better provided for than they have ever been before. Rich and poor alike are interested in this movement, and let all classes as one man join in rendering every facility to ensure complete success.    --Bridgeport Standard, October 7, 1865   Local residents chose to buy these and other historic homes nearby because of they would have access to the park. The elderly, mothers with children, people walking dogs, and riding bicycles use this route to enter the park. Owners consider their proximity the Seaside Park and the vista as seen from Main Street critical to the value of their homes, and important as a car route to carry disabled relatives to the Park.   There was and still is great hope that Resilient Bridgeport will improve security and livability for the working class and ethnically diverse population that lives in the South End, not just students or new residents. The South End’s boundaries within my lifetime were State and Iranistan - everything south & east. It has born it’s share of urban renewal. These are the preferences of the community that has had the resilience to stay.     Maisa L. Tisdale, President/CEO The Mary & Eliza Freeman Center for History and Community (203) 895-2469 cell www.freemancenterbpt.com  CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: This e-mail including any attachments contains confidential information belonging to the sender. It may also be privileged or otherwise protected by work product immunity or other legal rules. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this emailed information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify us by reply email of the error and then delete this email immediately. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RESILIENT BRIDGEPORT: * * National Disaster * Resilience and Rebuild * by Design Projects * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * March 14, 2018 PUBLIC SCOPING HEARING HELD BEFORE: DIMPLE DESAI, Hearing Officer CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE CHERYL S. DAMATO, CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER 300 TOLL GATE ROAD BERLIN, CONNECTICUT 06037 (860)828-8847 2 . . . The following is the Public Scoping 1 2 Hearing in the Matter of: 3 National Disaster Resilience and Rebuild by Design 4 Projects, held before Dimple Desai, Hearing 5 Officer and Cheryl S. Damato, Certified Court 6 Reporter in and for the State of Connecticut, held 7 at the University of Bridgeport Arts & Humanities 8 Building, 84 Iranistan Avenue, Bridgeport, 9 Connecticut, at 6:36 p.m., on Wednesday, March 14, 10 RESILIENT BRIDGEPORT, 2018. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Also present: David Kooris, Program Manager, Director of Resilience, Connecticut Department of Housing Hermia M. Delaire, Program Manager, CDBG Disaster Recovery Programs, Connecticut Department of Housing Nicole Weymouth, Deputy Environmental Manager, WSP USA Laura Toole, Senior Supervising Manager, Connecticut Public Involvement, WSP USA Members of the public 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE 3 1 THE HEARING OFFICER: 2 everyone. 3 would be great. 4 public hearing. 5 Good evening If you can take your seat, that We're going to start the My name is Dimple Desai and I'm from 6 the State of Connecticut Department of 7 Housing. 8 hearing officer for tonight's scoping 9 meeting for the Resilient Bridgeport I'm the Department of Housing 10 projects. 11 presentation about the environmental 12 analysis for three projects: 13 project for RBD and two NBR projects. 14 After that the formal scoping hearing 15 begins. 16 You're about to see a The pilot Now I'd like to call David Kooris who 17 is the Director of Resilience for the DOH 18 to give some remarks. 19 MR. KOORIS: Thanks to both. I'm 20 just going to walk briefly through what 21 we're going to be doing tonight and we're 22 trying to get a lot done in a relatively 23 short amount of time. 24 appreciate everyone coming out and I think 25 this is a really great opportunity to get So we certainly CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE 4 1 feedback from you all on the environmental 2 review process, but also on some of the 3 aspects of the design which we'll get into 4 later in the evening. 5 I'm going to give a brief overview of 6 the project. Just kind of a reminder I 7 know we've got a lot of familiar faces 8 here but we just want to kind of refresh 9 very briefly sort of where we've come from 10 and where we're going, and then Nicole is 11 going to walk us through the actual 12 environmental process in accordance with 13 both the National Environmental Policy Act 14 and the Connecticut Environmental Policy 15 Act which includes a whole series of 16 components, the purpose and need for the 17 project, the proposed action, how we're 18 going to analyze and assess alternatives, 19 what some of the environmental 20 considerations are that we're going to be 21 reviewing these projects through, what the 22 schedule is for the overall process, and 23 then we're going to have a scoping 24 hearing. 25 And so tonight those of you who have CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE 5 1 been coming to our hearings for a couple 2 of years know that at mandated intervals 3 throughout the project at key milestones 4 like tonight with the release of the 5 scoping document for the environmental 6 review we have a formal public hearing 7 which is the opportunity for you all to 8 put your comments on the record. 9 comments from you at every meeting and I We get 10 think we've demonstrated clearly how we 11 take the information that we receive from 12 you all and incorporate it into design and 13 incorporate it into the project. 14 there are these opportunities as well to 15 log those comments formally within the 16 federal record such that they are part of 17 the project and part of the project 18 documentation going forward. But 19 So just a quick reminder after 20 Hurricane Sandy in 2012, five and a half 21 years ago, the Federal Government through 22 the Department of Housing and Urban 23 Development in an attempt to try and 24 change the way we do disaster recovery 25 rather than just replacing what was CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE 6 1 damaged just as it was before and keeping 2 our vulnerabilities to future storm events 3 and to future disasters the same, they 4 wanted to engage communities throughout 5 the region in a process through design and 6 through stakeholder engagement and through 7 community participation to identify ways 8 in which our communities can better 9 prepare through design and through 10 infrastructure investment to be more 11 resilient to future events and thinking 12 broadly. 13 all about economic resilience, jobs, tax 14 base, bringing resources to the community, 15 social resilience, enhancing the social 16 fabric that binds us all together, 17 ecological resilience, you know, restoring 18 some of our natural system so they can 19 play a valuable role within our 20 communities. 21 Not just disaster recovery but That competition was in 2014. 22 Bridgeport was lucky to be one of ten 23 communities that was assigned urban design 24 and architecture and landscape 25 architectural support by the Federal CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE 7 1 Government through HUD and we were one of 2 seven who through the State of Connecticut 3 was awarded funding, $10 million for 4 planning which we completed over the 5 course of the past couple of years, and 6 for a pilot project to reduce flood risk 7 in the vicinity of Marina Village. 8 Based on the success of that 9 competition, they expanded it to the 10 national scale in something that was 11 called the National Disaster Resilience 12 Competition. 13 work that we had done here together in 14 Bridgeport, the State of Connectiut put 15 together a proposal that included 16 additional pilot projects in Bridgeport, 17 but also a broader regional planning 18 process and state policy analysis to begin 19 to scale up the lessons that we're 20 learning here together on the ground and 21 institutionalizing them in the way we make 22 decisions at the state and regional levels 23 so that we can learn from the great work 24 that's happening here. 25 Again, building off of the Connecticut was again very successful CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE 8 1 and was one of 13 awardees across the 2 country with an additional $54 million, 3 about 42 million of which was earmarked to 4 continue investment in infrastructure 5 identified through the Resilient 6 Bridgeport program. 7 So we have approximately 52 million, 8 some of which has been spent already, 9 through the planning process and 10 preliminary design to get us where we are 11 today. 12 majority of which is for investment in 13 four projects within the community which 14 you'll hear a bit more about. The remainder of which, the vast 15 But again, just to kind of take a 16 step back and remind ourselves this is 17 first and foremost about reducing flood 18 risk but it's about leveraging those 19 resources that we've been awarded for that 20 purpose to create a whole range of 21 benefits. 22 focusing on Bridgeport was about 23 transit-oriented development, downtown 24 revitalization and capitalizing on 25 opportunities for private investment in And Connecticut's proposal CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE 9 1 our community to bring tax revenue, to 2 bring jobs, to bring housing, market rate 3 and affordable, to bring all the 4 ingredients that we have all been looking 5 for, for some time to elevate the 6 prospects for the future for particularly 7 the south end. 8 9 And with that, I'm going to hand it over to Nicole whose going to talk more 10 specifically about the environmental 11 review process and the scoping document 12 that we're discussing tonight. 13 MS. WEYMOUTH: Thank you. So we have 14 to generate an environmental impact 15 statement and environmental impact 16 evaluation because these are HUD projects 17 and they're federally funded. 18 the National Environmental Policy Act and 19 the parallel process for the Connecticut 20 Environmental Policy Act. 21 federal agency. 22 responsibility to the Connecticut 23 Department of Housing for this 24 environmental process. 25 So there's HUD is the lead They designate Now NEPA and CEPA although we do CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE 10 1 generate documents as a result of them, 2 they're really more about the process and 3 it's about identifying a purpose and need, 4 you know, evaluating alternatives that 5 would meet that purpose in need and 6 getting public agency input to evaluate 7 those alternatives against social, 8 ecological and economic impacts. 9 The process you can see on the far 10 side started officially with the notice of 11 intent that was published in the Federal 12 Register, the notice of intent for EIS and 13 that kicked off our scoping period which 14 is where we are right now. 15 Once the scoping period is over, 16 we're going to really dig into preparing 17 the draft, environmental impact statement. 18 When that gets released there will be 19 another opportunity for a public input and 20 formal comments, another hearing and we'll 21 incorporate those comments and get a final 22 EIS and record of decision which is the 23 ultimate goal so that construction can 24 then begin. 25 So what is scoping? That's an open CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE 11 1 process that we like to have at the 2 beginning of the environmental process so 3 we don't go too far down a path without 4 getting some input on what we've defined 5 as the purpose in need, what alternatives 6 should be considered and what 7 methodologies we should be using in 8 evaluating those alternatives. 9 And so our official scoping period 10 started February 27. 11 continue on through March 28. 12 draft scoping report that was published 13 and we have copies that are out front if 14 you'd like to comment on that. 15 comments that we receive during the 16 scoping period will be incorporated in our 17 final scoping report that will be 18 published again. 19 It's going to We have a Any of the So I want to go over the main topics 20 that are in this scoping report that you 21 can read. 22 project needs and we've talked a lot about 23 that with all the public involvement 24 that's happened with this project. 25 aware of the conditions in this community First we need to identify the Pretty CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE 12 1 with the risk for future storm events, 2 exacerbated by climate change and sea 3 level rise. 4 vulnerable populations as well as some 5 critical utilities, critical 6 infrastructure that are all impacted by 7 the flood risk. 8 south end community how large a portion it 9 is within the hundred year floodplain and We have a community with some This just shows on the 10 there's an overlay on there that you can 11 see is the Hurricane Sandy inundation, and 12 a large part were affected by that storm. 13 We have developed in the scoping 14 document our preliminary project purpose 15 that we would like some feedback on if you 16 have some comments. 17 that we developed was to create a more 18 resilient south end community that 19 supports its long-term viability and 20 improves the health and safety for the 21 community's vulnerable populations. 22 The primary purpose In addition we identified three 23 targeted outcomes to lower the risk of 24 both acute and chronic flooding where 25 possible. Provide dry egress during CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE 13 1 emergencies and educate the public about 2 flood risks and sea level rise. 3 In addition to help us with the 4 evaluation of alternatives, we have some 5 primary, you know, goals and a whole list 6 of objectives that support those goals and 7 those can be found in the scoping 8 document. 9 chronic flooding, integrating with local Talk about the acute and 10 stakeholders, co-benefits when possible 11 and the final one, very important, is the 12 implementable which goes to the cost and 13 schedule which is a big defining part of 14 the funding that we received from NDR and 15 RBD and we have a limited amount of money. 16 We want to make the most of it and it has 17 to be spent by a certain period of time. 18 So we have to be realistic about what we 19 can do. 20 The co-benefits we would like to, you 21 know, this is our wish list what we'd like 22 to see happen in addition to our primary 23 purpose. 24 have these stakeholders throughout this 25 community; the university, the utilities, We want to, you know, look -- we CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE 14 1 the Park City communities, Seaside 2 Village -- Seaside Park, sorry. 3 to get the most out of our stakeholders 4 and the facilities that are there already. 5 We want So the projects that fall under this 6 EIS and EIE, there are three components. 7 The first is the pilot project that came 8 out of the RBE book. 9 place at the site of Marina Village which So this would take 10 is going to be separate from us, you know. 11 Residents relocated and the facilities 12 demolished and we wanted to first extend 13 Johnson Street across the site and then on 14 the southern part create a 2.5-acre storm 15 water park that would, you know, serve as 16 an area for drainage for storm water 17 during rain events and then eventually out 18 fall into Cedar Creek. 19 allow for future development of that site 20 which is separate from this project. 21 So that would In addition, there's the flood, what 22 we're calling sort of the flood risk 23 reduction and this would occur more on the 24 east side of the south end. 25 combination of elevated roadways, berms, Some CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE 15 1 flood walls that would form a line of 2 protection on the east side. 3 In the scoping document, we've just 4 identified some very rough alignment 5 alternatives. 6 I know our group and working with the 7 different stakeholders are starting to 8 really refine these alignments but just in 9 general we, you know, laid it out as one, We wanted to get feedback. 10 being just the edge alignment; one looking 11 more, you know, interior that would 12 probably serve more to provide dry egress 13 and not necessarily a lot of flood 14 protection; or an integrated solution that 15 is more interior and integrates with some 16 of the other stakeholders and development 17 they're doing. 18 So as we're developing these 19 alignments, what we're actually going to 20 see in the EIS is a lot more detailed and 21 very specific to this road going up here, 22 bending here and very likelihood we're 23 looking at multiple alternative alignments 24 that might be all within, you know, the 25 integrated general area. CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE 16 1 And the third part of this 2 environmental documentation is the 3 resilient hub, and the form and function 4 of that is still being developed. 5 really go into detail because that is 6 actually going to be a focus of the 7 following design meeting so stick around 8 for more to hear about what they're 9 thinking there and to participate in the 10 11 I won't development of ideas for this facility. What we're doing as part of the EIS, 12 the screening process we start with a full 13 range of any possible alternatives and 14 start whittling them down. 15 goals and objectives that were developed, 16 evaluate the different alternatives 17 against those goals and objectives, and 18 then for a smaller subset we will evaluate 19 the impacts from those different 20 alternatives to eventually come to a 21 preferred alternative which will be in the 22 final EIS. 23 We have the Just touching on quickly the 24 different impact categories that will be 25 in the EIS and in the scoping document, CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE 17 1 you will see a brief summary of the 2 proposed methodology and what our approach 3 would be in each of these categories and 4 how we would be evaluating impacts and 5 you'll see it really covers a broad range 6 of impacts. 7 air noise that might come from 8 construction, visual impacts. 9 socioeconomics so impacts to residents, to There's land use, possible It includes 10 businesses as well. 11 have environmental justice, low income and 12 minority populations in the area so all 13 the impacts would be evaluated to see if 14 there's any disproportionate adverse 15 impacts to those communities. 16 we'll be looking at the utilities and 17 storm water. 18 will be to some of the local roadways and 19 we will be looking at the traffic impacts 20 as a result of that. 21 We're very aware we Obviously We know some of the impacts In addition, there's sort of a more 22 traditional, you know, if there's wetlands 23 and floodplains, surface water, coastal 24 resources, of course, and we're very aware 25 there's a lot of cultural resources in CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE 18 1 this very small area which we're 2 discovering; architectural and 3 archiological resources. 4 Just touching on that, there is a 5 Section 106 of the National Historic 6 Preservation Act as a very detailed 7 process to identify resource, assess their 8 impacts and resolve any adverse impacts in 9 consultation with the state historic 10 perservation office and other consulting 11 parties. 12 that will be going on at the same time as 13 our NEPA and CEPA process is under way. And that's a parallel process 14 An important part of this is our 15 agency coordination which we have started. 16 We're reaching out to the different 17 agencies to get their input. 18 partners in this through the rod and then 19 we'll continue in some cases if there's 20 additional permitting that's required as 21 part of construction. 22 They will be This is a very broad rough strokes of 23 the schedule. Just in general we're at 24 the scoping portion here in early 2018. 25 Our hope is to get, you know, develop a CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE 19 1 draft, EIS this spring, into summer so 2 that we can have a draft, EIS publish and 3 available sometime in the fall, if 4 possible. 5 opportunity for comment and then we'll 6 incorporate those comments and work to get 7 that finalized and ultimately get a record 8 of decision maybe early, hopefully, again, 9 early 2019 is probably a realistic time That would be another 10 frame. 11 degree, you know, developing the -- 12 continuing the design. 13 can't begin until we've gotten that rod 14 and then it has to be complete by 15 September, 2022. 16 At the same time we'll be to a The construction Tonight we'll open it up for public 17 comment. 18 other opportunities to comment through 19 March 28. 20 e-mail to the info at 21 Resilientbridgeport.com. We have comment 22 cards at the front desk. You can take 23 one, fill it out now, or take it home and 24 mail it in. 25 You can speak now but there are If you want to just send an All those comments no matter how they CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE 20 1 get to us if we receive them by March 28 2 will be considered and responded to in the 3 final scoping document which will be 4 published on the website. 5 I'm going to pass it back. 6 THE HEARING OFFICER: So that's all. As the 7 Department's hearing officer, I am here to 8 listen to comments from any members of the 9 public who wishes to offer comments. A 10 public hearing is the time for people who 11 have thoughts on the environmental scoping 12 for the NDR and RBD project, to put those 13 thoughts on the record. 14 what you need to comment on, however, this 15 is the first time of the scoping so the 16 whole scope will be developed right now. 17 And you know so these are the important 18 steps, the first steps to provide your 19 comments. 20 And you will have I'm here to listen only. This is not 21 going to be a back and forth so what we'll 22 do is just hear you out and, you know, 23 intake all the comments you have. 24 it's verbal, written, you can submit it 25 later but this is like an intake process Whether CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE 21 1 right now and we will not be responding to 2 your comments tonight. 3 In response to all comments it will 4 be included in the final scoping document. 5 To that end there is a sign-up sheet for 6 this hearing at the signing desk when you 7 entered this room. 8 and have not signed that sheet, please do 9 so. 10 If you wish to speak After we have heard from any elected 11 or appointed officials, we will take 12 comments from members of the general 13 public in the order that person appears on 14 the signing sheet. 15 three minutes to speak. 16 when two of the three minutes have passed. 17 This way we will go through the list and 18 ask if anyone who has spoken before wishes 19 to offer comments again for another three 20 minutes. 21 all the comments have been received. 22 Each person will have I will signal The hearing will conclude when You will see that we have a 23 stenographer who is recording this hearing 24 as well. 25 outside, you know, if you want to turn We have also comment forms CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE 22 1 them in as formal comments. 2 you have to do during the public comment 3 period which concludes on March 28 so that 4 is the deadline for comments on this 5 scoping process. 6 That's all If you'd like to record your comments 7 in a more private setting, please see one 8 of our staff at the signing desk. 9 provide you with a tape recorder for the We will 10 three-minute period and those comments 11 will be part of the formal record. 12 state your name and organization, 13 affiliation clearly as you begin and if 14 you have a written document that reflects 15 your comments, please hand them to the 16 stenographer when finished. 17 MS. TOOLE: Please As of this moment no one 18 has signed to make comments. 19 elected or appointed official in the room 20 who would like to say something? 21 anybody like to make a comment? 22 THE HEARING OFFICER: Would This is your 23 chance. 24 might as well say something. 25 Is there an You have come all the way here so MS. YEVES: Good evening everyone. CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE 23 1 My name is Carmen Yeves and I'm a resident 2 of the south end and I also represent the 3 South end NRZ and I just want to -- we've 4 given a letter of support to this in the 5 past about the work that we've been doing 6 here and we think that we've been very 7 involved in the process. 8 that it's not an overnight process so that 9 we know that it will take several years. We understand 10 What we are excited about is the 11 opportunity to finally get some resiliency 12 working construction finally started 13 because of the floods that we've had 14 before and how it's impacted our 15 community. 16 development from being able to -- other 17 projects to be able to build more locally, 18 maybe rehabbing properties and things like 19 that because, you know, houses need to be 20 lifted off the grounds because of that. So 21 we're excited about the opportunity to 22 finally see some work going in because we 23 believe that once one project and the 24 study is completed and published, it will 25 actually open up the opportunity as things It's actually stopped new CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE 24 1 are -- one project will build on the other 2 and we know that it will take over time 3 but we feel that this is a needed -- we as 4 part of the NRZ have had meetings where 5 we've had the group come and speak. 6 We've done other events in other 7 places where the community has been 8 involved, including youth. 9 design, discussions that we've had that They've done 10 involve the youth, and we're looking 11 forward to continuing that so we thank you 12 for all that you've done and you have my 13 support and the support of the NRZ going 14 forward. 15 Thank you. THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 16 Anyone else would like to follow up? 17 don't see any other speakers. 18 MS. SILVAS: Hello everybody. I I feel 19 strong about putting my back to everybody. 20 Oh, hey Alex. 21 long time. 22 23 24 25 I haven't seen you in a THE COURT REPORTER: I need your name, ma'am. MS. SILVAS: S-i-l-v-a-s. My name is Lydia Silvas, I am a resident in the CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE 25 1 Seaside Village and it's kind of hard to 2 make a comment at the beginning of the 3 evening when we haven't had our workshop 4 yet, but one of the reasons that I wanted 5 to come out tonight and take part in the 6 design part of the workshop is my interest 7 in the Resilience -- the Resiliency 8 Centers that we're going to be having and 9 in some of the meetings that we've been 10 having so far, it's been very open for the 11 community to make suggestions about what 12 we'd like to see that be and one of the 13 things that I would like to throw out to 14 the community is the idea of -- at one 15 point there was a gentleman that came over 16 from Holland and did a workshop that was 17 open to all of us and he talked about the 18 importance of monitoring and the 19 importance of monitoring in cities that 20 have -- that already have old and somewhat 21 failing storm water systems like we have 22 here in the south end and in other 23 sections of Bridgeport, and it sparked the 24 idea in my mind that if we could use the 25 Resiliency Center as a center to use as a CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE 26 1 way to start a program to do monitoring 2 and do it with the aid of maybe under his 3 direction with the rest of the team that's 4 working, the engineers that are working to 5 set up a program to bring the community, 6 volunteers in the community and maybe UB 7 and Groundwork Bridgeport and other 8 partners that have been involved in this 9 program to start monitoring the south end 10 as part of the Resilience program. It 11 would give our youth and our university 12 and anybody else in the community a chance 13 to really take part in correcting our 14 failing storm water systems down here and 15 to set up now that we've got this big body 16 of money, to set up a really educated and 17 smart groundwork so that we can set our 18 self up for future funding to maintain 19 this kind of work over a period of years 20 because it's going to take us a long time 21 to really correct and maintain our 22 situation down here. 23 So I know tonight we're going to be 24 talking about the Resilient Center and I 25 just wanted to be able to throw that idea CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE 27 1 out. 2 something that the rest of the community 3 is interested in but I wanted to use this 4 time to just say what has been on my mind 5 as a resident down here and thank you. 6 I don't know how or if that is THE HEARING OFFICER: Thank you. 7 Anyone else would like to speak, any 8 comments on the scoping notice or scoping 9 document or scope. Seeing none, what I 10 would like to do is close the public 11 hearing and, you know, you still have a 12 chance to comment in writing, you know, 13 during this presentation or later on and, 14 you know, by e-mail, by submitting papers, 15 anything but the deadline is March 28 so, 16 you know, you have until that time and 17 thank you. 18 19 (At this point, the public hearing concluded at 7:00 p.m.) 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE 28 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the foregoing 28 pages are a complete and accurate computer-aided transcription of my original Stenotype notes taken of the public scoping hearing in the Matter of: RESILIENT BRIDGEPORT: National Disaster Resilience and Rebuild by Design Projects, held before DIMPLE DESAI, Hearing Officer, and before Cheryl S. Damato, Certified Court Reporter/Notary Public in and for the State of Connecticut, held at the University of Bridgeport Arts & Humanities Building, 84 Iranistan Avenue, Bridgeport, Connecticut, commencing at 6:36 p.m., on Wednesday, March 14, 2018. ____________________________ Cheryl S. Damato Court Reporter-Notary Public CHERYL S. DAMATO/COURT REPORTING SERVICE