# Joint Appendix Vol II — Kelo v. New London > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0031%3A09 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Joint Appendix Vol II - **Published:** January 1, 2005 - **Citation:** 545 U.S. 469 ## Text te ' — } Supreme Court ES | rrieD No. 04-108 oo 2004 In The Supreme Court of the United States SUSETTE KELO, THELMA BRELESKY, PASQUALE CRISTOFARO, WILHELMINA AND CHARLES DERY, JAMES AND LAURA GURETSKY, PATAYA CONSTRUCTION LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, and WILLIAM VON WINKLE, Vv Petitioners, CITY OF NEW LONDON, and NEW LONDON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, @® Respondents. - On Writ Of Certiorari To The Supreme Court Of Connecticut , JOINT APPENDIX Volume II, Pages 213 to 487 Horton, SHIELDS & KNox, P-C. WesLey W. Horton* DANIEL J. KRISCH 90 Gillett Street Hartford, CT 06105 (860) 522-8338 (860) 728-0401 (fax) WALLER, SMITH & PALMER, PC. EDWARD B. O'CONNELL 52 Eugene O'Neill Drive New London, CT 06320 (860) 442-0367 (860) 447-9915 | ax) Conway & LONDREGAN THOMAS J. LONDREGAN JEFFREY T. LONDREGAN 38 Huntington Street New London, CT 06320 (860) 447-3171 (860) 444-6103 (fax) Counsel for Respondents *Counsel of Record 4 INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE WILLIAM H. MELLOR Scott G. BULLOCK* DANA BERLINER 1717 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 200 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 955-1300 (202) 955-1329 (fax) SAWYER Law Firm, LLC Scott W. SAWYER The Jill S. Sawyer Building 251 Williams Street New London, CT 06320 (860) 442-8131 (860) 442-4131 (fax) Counsel for Petitioners Petition For Certiorari Filed July 19, 2004 Certiorari Granted September 28, 2004 COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO (800) 225-6964 OR CALL COLLECT (402) 342-2831 JOINT APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS Volume I Relevant Docket Entries from the Courts below........... EXHIBITS FROM TRIAL HELD IN THE SUPERIOR COURT, JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW LONDON IN JULY AND AUGUST, 2001 MAPS Plaintiffs’ Exhibit TT — Fort Trumbull MDP Area — - New London, Connecticut .................c.ccccccceeeceeeeeeeeeees Plaintiffs’ Exhibit VV — Fort Trumbull MDP Com- posite Land Use Plan Map 3.................cccccccssseeeeeeeeeees Plaintiffs’ Exhibit YY - Fort Trumbull Develop- ment Site Plan dated October 10, 2000 ..................... OTHER EXHIBITS Plaintiffs’ Exhibit B —- Representative Statement of I ccscrcsneccenssstestesneennrnganmnnninaanne Plaintiffs’ Exhibit I - New London Development Corporation (NLDC) Board’s Record of Vote and Resolution dated October 16, 2000 ..................ccccc0e00s Plaintiffs’ Exhibit II — Letter to George Milne from Claire Gaudiani dated December 15, 1997................ Plaintiffs’ Exhibit PP1 —- Email to George Milne from James Serbia dated October 21, 1998................ Plaintiffs’ Exhibit PP2 -— Letter to Dr. Claire Gaudiani from George Milne, Jr. dated March 8, BIRD -ccceccecccosccneceesccsvvssssnnaneeseqnounenenssosssnsnnssonesssooonenente ii JOINT APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued Page Defendant NLDC’s Exhibit 12 - New London City Counsel Resolution of January 18, 2000, author- izing the use of eminent domain.........................00000008 26 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit HHH - Memorandum from Developer Marty Jones of Corcoran Jennison to Joseph E. Corcoran, Gary Jennison, Scott Dumont, Harry Nash and Eliza Edelsberg dated ne 30 Excerpts from Defendant NLDC’s Exhibit 38 — Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan (MDP) Revised Administrative Draft, August 1999 ¢ Section 1: Introduction (pgs. 1-1 through 1-11 rt cesiesihiceienteininibebterentaciitigisidadbehiapaamiendenmemmanteteresseqseees 83 * Section 3: Existing Site Conditions (pgs. 3-19 iia cecrierimastasrcemmnnennnniemmtnccee 96 ¢ Section 5: Proposed Improvements........................ 108 ¢ Section 9: Administrative Plan Summary ............. 188 ¢ Appendix A: Selection of and Rationale for the Preferred Alternative — Fort Trumbull MDP I sindacetnieiasiaestneatienehidaibienbiaiemimmenaadepesnecescnanesoteeuenes 190 ¢ Proposed Land Uses Map 5.1................c:ccccseeeeeeees 212 Volumes II and III Defendant NLDC’s Exhibit 34 - Draft Environ- mental Impact Evaluation — dated November 10, aaa eeuidesideethchannuieiaastnidgueidesstidpiasedntatemitmuentgnesendeousversnetes 213 iii JOINT APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued Page The following documents have been omitted in the printing of this Joint Appendix. They may be found in the Appendix to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari at the following pages: Opinion of the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of New London, At New London, Decided March 13, 2002 ............ccccccccceeeceeeeeeeeeeees App. 191 Opinion of the Connecticut ago Court, De- Cided March 9, 2004.........::::ccccccsesrsececssscsssrerssesesesers App. 1 Order of Connecticut Supreme Court Granting Motion for Stay of Execution Pending Decision by the United States Supreme Court, Decided April i Wai ccessnsncescccsscsscesscssscsccsscscossscesssssnessecscoseseees App. 425 Order of the Connecticut Supreme Court Denying Motion for Reconsideration, Decided April 20, 213 DEFENDANTS’ EXHIBIT 34 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EVALUATION FORT TRUMBULL MDP AREA New London, Connecticut November 10, 1998 (Map Omitted In Printing) Sponsoring Agency: State of Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development Implementing Agency: New London Development Corporation New London, Connecticut Primary Author: Milone & MacBroom, Inc. 716 South Main Street Cheshire, Connecticut 06410 Contributors: The Downes Group — Program Management Marguerite Wilbur - Program Management Wallace Roberts and Todd — Land Use Planning RKG Associates, Inc. - Economic Analysis/ Building Inventory Bartram and Cochran MBIA — Economic Analysis Harrall-Michalowski Associates, Inc. - HRP Associates, Inc. - Hazardous Waste and Contamination Assessment Diversified Technology Consultants, Inc. - 214 NOTE TO REVIEWERS November 10, 1998 Notice is hereby given by the State of Connecticut De- partment of Economic and Community Development that, pursuant to Section 22a-1(d) of the Connecticut Environ- mental Policy Act, a Copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Evaluation (DEIE) document for the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan (MDP) Area, New London, Connecticut is available for review at the office of the New London Development Corporation, 165 State Street, Suite 313, New London, Connecticut. Copies of the DEIE are also available at the following locations: New London City Clerk's Office New London Public Library New London Office of Development & Planning New London Senior Center Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development This project will involve preparation and implementation of a Municipal Development Plan under Section 130, 132, and/or 588(1) of the Connecticut General Statutes. The project area is located along the west bank of the Thames River to the north of Greens Harbor and includes the U'S. Navy's closed Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC), the regional Water Pollution Control Facility, and the adjacent Fort Trumbull area to the east of the Amtrak rail line, and portions of Howard Street, Hamilton Street, Shaw Street, and Harris Street to the west of the rail line. The comment period for the DEIE will conclude on De- cember 28, 1998. Written comments should be submitted to: 215 Attention: Peter Simmons, PE. Community Development Specialist Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development 505 Hudson Street Hartford, Connecticut 06106 The Draft EIE has been distributed to the following agencies and organizations: Federal Organizations/Individuals Number of Copies U.S. Navy 2 U.S. Coast Guard Academy ? 1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1 State Organizations/Individuals == # Number Department of Economic and Community Council of Environmental Quality Office of Policy and Management Local Organizations/Individuals of Copies New London City Clerk 1 New London Public Library 1 New London Senior Center 1 New London City Councilors 7 New London City Manager 1 New London Director Office of Development and Planning 1 1 216 New London Fire Chief 1 New London Planning and Zoning Commission 10 New London Development Corporation 6° NLDC Board of Directors | Private Organizations/Individuals Pfizer, Inc. Downes Group Wallace Roberts & Todd Harrall-Michalowski & Associates RKG Associates, Inc. Diversified Technologies Consultants HRP Associates, Inc. Hirsch! & Silvestri NLDC Corporate Council EDAW Architects Blu-Prints Unlimited Copycats eee eee te ee oO TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED Ba ee erccececersensencsnnscnntecsneceseeteniiemnness 1.1.1 Project Background ....................0.0006 RE 1.1.3 Project Chronology ...................ccccccc000 RI FR cennccanntercssnenesetseteemnn 1.2.1 Overview of Regulation. ...................0 1.2.2 Determination of Environmental LS — Prehecnt Cee oo eaccccscesccccsesccssnvesesoscnsssorssvssvososensees of Copies 1.4 1.5 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.4 217 PpeeeOE AAAS RD wccrccccccccccccecescscccvsvesccescnssesosensessese 1-13 Relationship to Other Projects and Planning BPRS cccccascensescevecesevvssessesesevenscevssnscsussccccsseeee 1-14 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT EE) guumureempssessecssees 2-1 2.1.1 Statewide Land Use Conservation and Development.................::0c0cceeeeeeeees 2-1 2.1.2 Regional Land Use ...............cccccccceeeeeeees 2-6 2.1.3 Land Uses in the Project Vicinity ........... 2-7 2.1.4 Land Uses Within the MDP Boundary ...... 2-7 2.1.5 History of Development.......................: 2-10 SE ee 2-11 2.1.7 Coastal Zone Management.................... 2-14 chee RNG .ccccccccscccssccccccccccccvcccccsscvscevecsnensesees 2-18 2.2.1 Demographics .................ccccccccceeeeereeees 2-18 BBB BRAT crcecccccccccccscccscrcccsecccssecccseecee 2-21 2.23 Existing Tax Revenues.....................0+ 2-24 Neighborhood/Housing ..................0:c0seeeeseeeeeeeees 2-25 2.3.1 Citywide Housing................ccccccsseeees 2-25 2.3.2 Residential Analysis...................:000000 2-28 2.3.3 Building Inventory of the MDP Area ....... 2-33 2.3.4 Relocation Plan and Process ................. 2-36 2.3.5 Residential Households, Businesses, and Non-Profit Agencies....................+++ 2-37 2.3.6 Anticipated Relocation Expenses.......... 2-39 Community Facilities and Services..................... 2-41 A cei 2-41 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 218 ee — ircctctetesimnne 2-42 2.4.3. Public Safety and Emergency Services....... 2-43 2.4.4 Parks and Recreation. .....................000 2-44 Aesthetic/Visual Resources.....................ccccc00e0e 2-46 2.5.1 Regional Landscape......................:0008 2-46 2.5.2 MDP Area Landscape....................:.00 2-47 Public Utilities and Services ......................cc00008 2-48 SD PR cccnteceenteretecesnnenes 2-48 ee ccccnneescetesscnentsceninennsens 2-54 SE «—- cenecceeteiiins 2-57 2.6.4 THloctrio nergy ...........00ccccccscsccccccsscceseees 2-57 BI - iicntecintcensicsntdsnenncsiiensersenennnnivennicteniés 2-58 NN 2-58 i iecmnnenstesicrcennesencsnscctenienseinseiepaiiens 2-58 IE nicctrenicisttntcietemnnininns 2-59 2.7.1 Statewide Cultural Resources Policies ......2-59 2.7.2 Cultural Resources at the NUWC Site...... 2-59 2.7.3 Cultural Resources in the MDP Area........ 2-64 I so nincniseniimemssttscnniommaien 2-73 2.8.1 Roadway Network ...............ccccccccceeeee 2-73 2.8.2 Existing Traffic Conditions ................... 2-75 2.8.3 Public Transportation ....................... 2-75 2.8.4 Existing Parking...........................:0000+ 2-75 Se trrrnseecctnteninn 2-76 2.8.6 Amtrak Operations..................ccccccceee 2-77 2.9 2.10 2.11 2.12 ee I ccenccttncnnninnnemnensnmemaniteinenn 2-78 2.9.1 Surface Water Resources.................... 2-78 A ESE 2-79 Ce 2-79 Flood Hazard Potential ...................:cccccccceeeeeeeeees 2-82 SS Ee 2-82 2.10.2 Astronomical Tide Levels....................... 2-82 2.10.3 Tidal Flood Levels ..................cccccseeeeeees 2-83 2.10.4 FEMA Regulatory Program .................. 2-84 2.10.5 Conservation and Development Poli- cies Plan for Connecticut...................... 2-86 2.10.6 State and Federal Regulations and eee 2-87 Biological Environment ...................cccccsceeeeeeeeees 2-89 2.11.1 Coastal Management Policies ............... 2-89 ET 2-89 2.11.3 Living Marine Resources....................... 2-91 BR Te cecnntecmnesnnscecsscncsnsersotessnccsnnensees 2-93 B.20.G Tebemd Weekes .n....ccccicccccccccceccececsecccses 2-93 SF Bi Eran 2-94 Tei ctcenncteectinrernterennconennmncditsiléanins 2-94 2.11.8 Species of Special Concern .................... 2-96 Physical Environment ...................:.::cccssseeeesseeees 2-97 TR ccrnccccsnsnsssenescscenssesssnessnemessnes 2-97 RE i iceesrtenstinnteiineennen 2-97 2.12.3 Surficial Geology...................cccccsccceeeseeees 2-97 2.12.4 Bedrock Geology .................cccccccseeeeeees 2-101 2.13 2.14 3.0 3.1 3.2 220 Ba ccrvtcnseemnivnerrnnisitintateinnaniiinenes 2-102 2.13.1 Federal Air Quality Regulations and I cosscccncteneniasaninsnnedeiiaanbiataisantanean 2-102 2.13.2 Statewide Air Quality Policies and ee cccccssnsennscisnnnateninnianmnanassess 2-103 2.13.3 Site Specific Air Quality Analysis....... 2-107 BD ccscccsinesseanmnensienmeertitananiiagnmeieennnin 2-108 2.14.1 Local Noise Policies and Regulations ...... 2-108 2.14.2 Noise Measurements in the Project CE cccicunensnnnnienvtsigitamesionasnmisseniamnede 2-109 Solid Waste and Hazardous Materials.............. 2-112 2 eee 2-112 2.15.2 Hazardous Materials........................... 2-113 2.15.3 Applicable Environmental Regulations.... 2-113 2.15.4 Potential Environmental Contami- nation in the Project Area ................... 2-118 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED ID cccresceremnsssittiscnnioticinnipemnestninnneass 3-1 Land Use Concept Alternatives..................cc000000+: 3-3 3:2.1 Overview of Alternatives and Fixed Een 3-3 3.2.2 Programs Elements Common to Al- ternatives 2 Through 6....................0000+ 3-12 3.2.3. Roadway Improvement Alternatives ....3-14 3.2.4 Alternative No. 1 — No Action................ 3-24 3.2.5 Alternative No. 2 — Recreation/ eR icsscecenterctectennemamnnneneenn 3-25 3.2.6 Alternative No. 3 — Residential/ 4.0 4.1 42 ~~ 4.3 221 3.2.7 Alternative No. 4 — Business Campus...... 3-29 3.2.8 Alternative No. 5 — Mixed Use 1.............. 3-30 3.2.9 Alternative No. 6 — Mixed Use 2.............. 3-31 IMPACT EVALUATION CE er ID ccccnecscrssennccnnnticcnmnasenseanceenssses 4-1 Land Use and Zoning Impacts ..........................+. 4-10 42.1 Consistency With Relevant Policies ee 4-10 4.2.2 Alternative No. 1 — No Action............... 4-13 4.23 Alternative No. 2 — Recreation/ I ccsnnsissccstusisintanasenceitiitaninintdalieatannent 4-14 4.2.4 Alternative No. 3 — Residential/ I icnainsescisiinapeicietianicciiimienainndel 4-14 4.2.5 Alternative No. 4— Business Campus...... 4-14 4.2.6 Alternative No. 5- Mixed Use 1............. 4-15 4.2.7 Alternative No. 6 —- Mixed Use 2............. 4-15 Socioeconomic Impacts ..................:cccccssssseseesseeees 4-16 GE a rercrrersettensteceen 4-16 4.3.2 Alternative No. 1 —- No Action............... 4-18 4.3.3 Alternative No. 2 -— Recreation/ i iscccccsetntcunicinivanintiemnietinnndbiiuasiies 4-19 4.3.4 Alternative No. 3 — Residential/ Eee 4-22 4.3.5 Alternative No. 4 — Business Campus...... 4-24 4.3.6 Alternative No. 5 — Mixed Use 1............. 4-26 4.3.7 Alternative No. 6 — Mixed Use 2 ............ 4-29 4.3.8 — GUREREEY ...-2220-00ecrcrescececerecenececrevesesocecees 4-32 4.4 4.5 4.6 222 Neighborhood/Housing Impacts ....................00++ 4-35 4.4.1 Atternative No. 1 — No Action............... 4-35 442 Alternative No. 2 — Recreation/ SD ccccccrnvntscnmnnsecevsenesictssaiiaaibcamnianti 4-35 443 Alternative No. 3 —- Residential/ SI cccccrcncscsccscunencitamapviansensinnes 4-36 4.4.4 Alternative No. 4 -— Business Campus...... 4-39 4.4.5 Alternative No. 5- Mixed Use 1............. 4-39 4.46 Alternative No. 6 - Mixed Use 2............. 4-41 Community Facilities and Services Impacts....... 4-43 4.5.1 Common Elements .................:::ccccccceee 4-43 4.5.2 Alternative No. 1 — No Action............... 4-44 45.3 Alternative No. 2 —- Recreation/ I ccnastigsenntiictormbesesnnennidebmudiones 4-44 4.5.4 Alternative No. 3 —- Residential/ Ee 4-44 4.5.5 Alternative No. 4 —- Business Campus...... 4-46 4.5.6 Alternative No. 5- Mixed Use 1............. 4-46 4.5.7 Alternative No. 6 —- Mixed Use 2............. 4-47 Aesthetic/Visual Resource Impacts..................... 4-48 4.6.1 Alternative No. 1 —No Action................ 4-48 46.2 Alternative No. 2 — Recreation/ I scscseneesenscsnasssersvinssssnsnnttinnnenmees 4-48 46.3 Alternative No. 3 — Residential/ I rccnenesrenssenenrsntananntsitiiiniae 4-49 4.6.4 Alternative No. 4 — Business Campus...... 4-49 4.6.5 Alternative No. 5-— Mixed Use 1............. 4-49 4.6.6 Alternative No. 6 — Mixed Use 2.............. 4-50 4.7 4.8 4.9 223 Public Utilities and Services Impacts................. 4-51 4.7.1 Common Elements ..................:c:ceceee 4-51 4.7.2 Alternative No. 1 — No Action............... 4-54 4.73 Alternative No. 2 — Recreation/ fy IE an cesssssssemeesennitisidmmiaminen 4-56 4.7.4 — Alternative No. 3 — Residential/ ee 4-58 4.7.5 Alternative No. 4 —- Business Campus...... 4-59 4.7.6 Alternative No. 5- Mixed Use 1............. 4-61 4.7.7 Alternative No.6 — Mixed Use 2.............. 4-62 Cultural Resources Impacts ..................000++ coves 4-64 4.8.1 Alternative No. 1 — No Action............... 4-64 4.8.2 Alternative No. 2 —- Recreation/ ED ccnvctncrnsvsnstnnnenceiieieiinsi 4-65 48.3 Alternative No. 3 — Residential/ I cccccnnesicannssiitemninmamnsins 4-65 4.8.4 Alternative No. 4 —- Business Campus...... 4-65 4.8.5 ~ Alternative No. 5-— Mixed Use 1............. 4-65 4.8.6 Altemative No. 6- Mixed Use 2 ............. 4-66 Traffic and Parking Impacts...................c00.c000000 4-67 49.1 Traffic Generation ..................ccccccceeeees 4-67 4.9.2 Intersection Capacity Analysis ............. 4-71 49.3 Evaluation Methodology........................ 4-72 Water Resource Impacts.................ccccccsseeeeeeeeeees 4-77 Flood Hazard Impacts ....................ccccceeeeeeeeeeeenes 4-78 4.11.1 Common Elements ...................cccccceeeeees 4-78 4.11.2 Alternative No. 1 — No Action............... 4-79 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 224 4.11.3 Alternative No. 2 — Recreation/ i ssticatid shesinaihicinmenneetenstanesastmene 4-79 4.11.4 Alternative No. 3 — Residential/ | ee 4-79 4.11.5 Alternative No. 4 — Business Campus...... 4-80 4.11.6 Alternative No. 5- Mixed Use 1............. 4-80 4.11.7 Alternative No. 6— Mixed Use 2............. 4-81 | MI i scscniiesicstuninitagsnesenenesesnecnennescece 4-81 Biological Environment Impacts.......................... 4-83 4.12.1 Alternative No. 1 - No Action............... 4-83 4.12.2 Alternative No. 2 — Recreation/ TTT isis siicniddsieininatnatneddpsdedunsecconsseennss 4-85 4.12.3 Alternative No. 3 — Residential/ RT i sinnnnicenteisnshcnnecieesnaniicsssenece 4-87 4.12.4 Alternative No. 4 — Business Campus...... 4-88 4.12.5 Alternative No. 5— Mixed Use 1............. 4-88 4.12.6 Alternative No. 6— Mixed Use 2............. 4-89 Physical Environment Impacts....................000+ 4-90 Air Quality Impacts...................:cssccsssseecessseeceeeee 4-91 4.14.1 Short-Term Air Quality Impacts........... 4-91 4.14.2 Long-Term Air Quality Impacts............. 4-92 EEE ee 4-93 4.15.1 Short-Term Impacts ..................00c00000000 4-93 4.15.2 Long-Term Impacts ................:0cccccceeeeee 4-93 Solid Waste and Hazardous Materials Impacts....... 4-95 4.16.1 Alternative No. 1 — No Action ............... 4-96 4.16.2 Alternative No. 2 — Recreation/ EE SN a 4-96 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 225 4.16.3 4.16.4 4.16.5 Alternative No. 5- Mixed Use 1........... 4.16.6 Alternative No. 6 —- Mixed Use 2........... Crrmmullative Empact,s ...........000ccssecesccsssssscssssssseess Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts....... Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment tee Certificates, Permits, Approvals ....................... 4.20.1 Pertinent Regulations and Statutes ...... 4.20.2 Tidal Wetlands and Structures, 4.20.3 4.20.4 4.20.5 4.20.6 Army Corps of Engineers Permits ...... 401 Water Quality Certificate............. Flood Management Compliance Cer- Ee 4.20.7 a 4.20.8 4.20.9 4.20.10 Local Inland Wetland Permits ............ 4.20.11 Coastal Consistency Site Plan Re- Alternative No. 4 — Business Campus.... 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 — 226 MITIGATION OPPORTUNITIES Land Use Mitigation Opportunities.................... Socioeconomic Mitigation Opportunities ............ Neighborhood/Housing Mitigation Opportu- CED ccessccnetsatnatieninbiatetnientiannmasitetansetantmantiiiatbininn a ID cccccenessrernsmeenseensinrsenenseneen i rcrccniioncescescsnnenareasinimeciasns Flood Hazard Mitigation Opportunities ............. Biological Environment Mitigation Opportu- ED ccnszsenesnnsesnsevesnmemenesemsesetenemsnsniennemness Physical Environment Mitigation Opportuni- eR censsennsensersnensnenribesntennesemannanseninaenniasi Air Quality Mitigation Opportunities ................. 5.14.1 Short-Term Impact Mitigation SE eee 5.14.2 227 5.15 Noise Mitigation Opportunities........................... 5-13 5.15.1 Short-Term Impact Mitigation 0 5-13 5.15.2 Long-Term Impact Mitigation Meas- — 5-13 5.16 Solid Waste/Hazardous Materials Mitigation Gupte D....0caccececscescscesscecesseesssnesenessssssssosanense 5-13 5.16.1 Investigation/Remediation Factors....... 5-13 5.16.2 Future Land Use Factors ...................... 5-14 6.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION Oe 6-1 6.2 Consultation and Coordination with Agen- cies/Organizations .............. pobpuniannennnpsscsisammmmnmanel 6-1 | 6-2 OF ee 6-3 7.0 DOCUMENT PREPARERG..................:ccccccccsseeres 7-1 CG ccccnsceensenmemsiecsmemeen 8-1 TABLES Table ES-1 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts...... ES-6 Table 2.2-1 New London Historic Population (1900-1990) ntinapepesindmesnnmnnenteammmeteitet 2-19 Table 2.2-2 1998 Estimated New London Popula- tion — Claritas. Inc... semmmemppusnannevanteqemuenn 2-19 Table 2.2-3 Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics; City of New London and Fort Trumbull Study Aree ............... 2-21 Table 2.2-4 Table 2.2-5 Table 2.2-6 Table 2.3-1 Table 2.3-2 Table 2.3-3 Table 2.3-4 Table 2.3-5 Table 2.3-6 Table 2.3-7 Table 2.3-8 Table 2.3-9 Table 2.4-1 228 Employment Trends by Place of Work for the City of New London (Resi- dents and Non-Residents) (1990- PD cencensnsnnmmnmnennes Composition of the New London Housing Stock (1980-1990) ................0... Age of New London Housing Stock......... Estimated Increase in Housing Units for New London and Selected Sur- rounding Towns — 1980 to 1989.............. Comparative Census Statistics - New London and Adjacent Communities........ Housing Units by Structure Type........... Housing Units Authorized (New Construction) 1990 to 1997.00.00... Residential Sales Data (1993 to 1997)... Table 2.6-1 Table 2.6-2 Table 2.6-3 Table 2.6-4 Table 2.6-5 Table 2.6-6 Table 2.6-7 Table 2.8-1 Table 2.10-1 Table 2.10-2 Table 2.10-3 Table 2.13-1 Table 2.13-2 Table 2.14-1 Table 2.14-2 Margin of Safety for Current and Projected Consumption Based on Ex- isting Supply Sources.......................0000 2-49 Various Scenarios for Increasing Safe cecilia eitiien aedaidiaeantitiinlichasil 2-50 Water Service Mains for the Fort Trumbull MDP Area.................ccccccccceeees 2-52 Hydrant Lecatieas...........20000:csecccsseeseseseess 2-53 Hydrant Flow Testing .....................0006 2-53 Sanitary Sewer Mains for the Fort Trumbull MDP Area ................cccccccceeeeeees 2-55 Comparison of Traffic Volumes (1984 SESE Sc RAR as a 2-76 Army Corps of Engineers Predicted Tidal Water Elevations............................ 2-83 Still Water Flood Levels (NGVD)............ 2-83 Explanation of Flood Zone Designa- Sar icscianl a ennccsastaitaliapnansiatasinnereaneaiemtantainasatis 2-84 Summary of National Ambient Air Quality Standards ..................ccccccceeeeeee 2-103 Estimated Carbon Monoxide Levels in the Project Area..................cccceceeeere 2-107 City of New London Noise Restrictions ...... 2-108 Measured Nose Levels in the Project GRD ccmnnninmnnnnenigetin 2-111 Table 3.2-1 Table 4.1-1 Table 4.1-2 Table 4.1-3 Table 4.1-4 Table 4.1-5 Table 4.1-6 Table 4.1-7 Table 4.3-1 Table 4.3-2 Table 4.3-3 Table 4.3-4 Table 4.3-5 Table 4.3-6 230 Access to Fort Trumbull MDP Area Comparison of Access Options ................ Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative No. 1 — No Action. ................. Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative No. 2 — Recreation/Tourism..... Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative No. 3 —- Residential/ Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative No. 4 - Business Campus .... Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative No. 5 — Mixed Use 1............. Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative No. 6 — Mixed Use 2............. Fort Trumbull MDP Area Alterna- tives Impact Summary ...................00000006 Square Footage Per Employee by I nccccscepenesescenenscesnrennenntesssenseonnnesets IIT ccnnccssssssvecnnassnstessscssncsnenenmenernees Development Program - Alternative 2 — Recreation/Tourism ..................0000008 Estimated Range of Direct Employment ~ Alternative 2 — Recreation/Tourism.......... Estimated Range of Indirect Em- ployment - Alternative 2 — Recreation/ TEIIITI coscnssnssnecsdseancuniantseusesssecemnanmtapesses Estimated Construction Costs - Table 4.3-7 Table 4.3-8 Table 4.3-9 Table 4.3-10 Table 4.3-11 Table 4.3-12 Table 4.3-13 Table 4.3-14 Table 4.3-15 Table 4.3-16 Table 4.3-17 Table 4.3-18 Table 4.3-19 231 Development Program - Alternative 3 — Residential/Commercial .................... : Estimated Range of Direct Employ- ment - Alternative 3 — Residential/ Estimated Range of Indirect Employ- Estimated Construction Costs - Alter- native 3 — Residential/Commercial......... Development Program - Alternative 4 — Business Campus ..............:::0:0000000000 Estimated Range of Direct Employ- ment — Alternative 4 - Business Estimated Range of Indirect Em- ployment - Alternative 4 — Business QRRTIIIUID coccccscccccccccsccecscccsscesessouseeonescsosoress Estimated Constructién Costs - Alternative 4 — Business Campus........... Development Program - Alternative 0) Estimated Range of Direct Employ- ment — Alternative 5 — Mixed Use 1 ....... Estimated Range of Indirect Em- ployment — Alternative 5 — Mixed TEED Bb ccconscncncssnsnsennesenecsussceesnestesanssenessacneess Estimated Construction Costs - Table 4.3-20 Table 4.3-21 Table 4.3-22 Table 4.3-23 Table 4.3-24 Table 4.3-25 Table 4.3-26 Table 4.4-1 Table 4.4-2 Table 4.4-3 Table 4.4-4 Table 4.5-1 Table 4.7-1 Table 4.7-2 232 Estimated Range of Direct Employ- ment— Alternative 6 — Mixed Use 2........ Estimated Range of Indirect Em- ployment - Alternative 6 - Mixed i i cccisinsincinenionsdeinninanneetetimmpstaisdatainiabantasitenes Estimated Construction Costs - Alternative 6 — Mixed Use 2 ................... Range of Employment Estimates by Land Use Alternative .....................cc0008 Range of Indirect Job Creation by Land Use Alternative .......................:s:+++ Summary of Construction Impacts by Land Use Alternative .......................000008 Summary of Tax Revenues Generated by Land Use Alternative ........................ Estimate of Displacement - Alterna- tive 2 — Recreation/Tourism .................... Estimate of Displacement - Alterna- tive 3 — Residential/Commercial ............. Estimate of Displacement - Alterna- tive 4 — Business Campus ....................... Estimate of Displacement - Alterna- tive § — Mimed Use 1 ...............ccscccccesssseees Demographics Concerning New London’s School-Aged Population. ........... Estimated Domestic Water Usage - Alternative 1 — No Actiwn......................... Table 4.7-3 Table 4.7-4 Table 4.7-5 Table 4.7-6 Table 4.7-7 Table 4.9-1 Table 4.9-2 Table 4.9-3 Table 4.9-4 Table 4.9-5 Table 4.9-6 Table 4.9-7 233 Estimated Domestic Water Usage -— Alternative 2 — Recreation/Tourism........ 4-56 Estimated Domestic Water Usage - Alternative 3 — Residential/Commercial .... 4-58 Estimated Domestic Water Usage - Alternative 4 —- Business Campus........... 4-60 Estimated Domestic Water Usage - Alternative S — Mixed Use 1................... 4-62 Estimated Domestic Water Usage - Alternative 6 — Mixed Use 2 ................... 4-63 Summary of Projected Traffic Counts..... 4-68 Anticipated Site-Generated Traffic - Alternative 4 —- Business Campus........... 4-69 Anticipated Site-Generated Traffic - Alternative 6 — Mixed Use 2 ................. 4-70 Levels of Service for Signalized I cnncnscctinrastnicenenatevinatansinins 4-73 Levels of Service for Unsignalized I ecicittctntninnnsinteimns 4-73 Anticipated Levels of Service.................. 4-74 Anticipated Critical Volume/Capacity Beil ccromanunsinsenentnsineniremanmnamemannns 4-75 Figure 1.1-1 Figure 1.1-2 Figure 1.1-3 Figure 1.1-4 Figure 1.1-5 Figure 2.1-1 Figure 2.1-2 Figure 2.1-3 Figure 2.2-1 Figure 2.3-1 Figure 2.7-1 Figure 2.7-2 Figure 2.7-3 Figure 2.7-4 Figure 2.10-1 Figure 2.12-1 Figure 2.12-2 Soil Types 234 FIGURES Location Map — City of New London... Project Location Map.......................++ Conservation and Development Policies Plan Locational Map.............. 1990 Census Tracts — New London, Block and Lot Designations................. Proposed Historic District at NUWC | eae Archaeological Assessment - NUWC.... Prehistoric Archeological Sensitivity .... Historic Archeological Sensitivity ...... 235 Figure 2.14-1 Noise Monitoring Locations .......... — 2-110 Figure 2.15-1 Preliminary Environmental Risk BI ictuasondnstcedestmnnsnnsenticcsescensiniinisinnds 2-120 Figure 3.2-1 Alternative No. 1 — No Action. ................. 3-6 Figure 3.2-2 Alternative No. 2 —- Recreation/ i cnticnteniinnniansenessinniciiniiiadadinnniineiia 3-7 Figure 3.2-3 Alternative No. 3 — Residential/ i icccnsevicnsersecsinaininitipitaintissienni 3-8 Figure 3.2-4 Alternative No. 4 — Business Cam- iD icanicttninnseieninnepremannanietinenin 3-9 Figure 3.2-5 Alternative No. 5 —Mixed Use 1............ 3-10 Figure 3.2-6 Alternative No. 6 — Mixed Use 2 .......... 3-11 Figure 3.2-7 Roadway Improvement Option A - Modify Existing Bridges........................ 3-21 Figure 3.2-8 Roadway Improvement Option B - New Access Road Over Tracks .............. 3-22 Figure 3.2-9 Roadway Improvement Option C - Construct New Railroad Under- I icccscieciercteneienninnieamneneine 3-23 APPENDICES AppendixA Environmental Assessment Appendix B Housing Availability Appendix C Listing of Properties within the MDP Area Appendix D Traffic Volume Data/Graphics a eae Appendix E Summary of Findings of Environmental Property Reviews Appendix F Relevant Correspondence 236 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Army Corps of Engineers Bartram and Cochran MBIA Base Realignment and Closure Connecticut Coastal Management Act Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. Connecticut Environmental Policy Act Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act Connecticut General Statutes Connecticut Historical Commission Connecticut Housing Finance Authority Connecticut Light & Power Carbon Monoxide Council of Governments Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection A-Weighted Decibel Department of Economic and Community Development Department of Environmental Protection Department of Transportation Department of Public Health Department of Public Utility Control Decent, Safe, and Sanitary Diversified Technology Consultants Environmental! Assessment Environmental! Impact Evaluation Environmental Protection Agency Economics Research Associates Federal Emergency Management Agency FHWA _ Federal Highway Administration gpd gallons per day HMA Harrall-Michalewski Associates, Inc. HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development ISO Insurance Services Organization kV kilovolt KVA kilovolt ampere L, Day/Night Sound Level L. Equivalent Sound Level LOS Level of Service LRA Local Reuse Authority MDP Municipal Development Plan yg/m’* microgram per cubic meter MG million gallons MGD million gallons per day MMI Milone & MacBroom, Inc. NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NDDB_Natural Diversity Data Base NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum NLDC New London Development Corporation NO, Nitrogen Dioxide NPDES _ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NUWC Naval Undersea Warfare Center OLISP Office of Long Island Sound Programs OPM Office of Policy and Management Pb Lead PM Particulate Matter 237 238 Project Oceanology parts per billion parts per million Research and Development Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RKG Associates, Inc. Remediation Standard Regulations Record of Decision Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Soil Conservation Service South East Area Transit Square Feet State Historic Preservation Officer Southern New England Telephone Sulfur Dioxide State Traffic Commission TAMS Consultants, Inc. Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure Urban Land Institute Uniform Relocation Assistance Act United States , United States Department of Agriculture United States Department of Housing amd Urban Development Underground Storage Tank Water Pollution Control Facility Wallace Roberts and Todd Wilbur Smith and Associates Water and Water Pollution Control Autmority x-ray fluorescent 239 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction Project Background The New London Development Corporation (NLDC), in association with the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD), is undertaking a planning project adjacent to the Thames River in New London, Connecticut. Plans for the project area are being prepared in accordance with a Municipal Development Planning process under Section 130, 132, and/or 588(1) of the Connecticut General Statutes. The planning process may result in a recommendation to undertake redevelop- ment of all or part of the planning area. Because state funds are involved, this Environmental Impact Evaluation (EIE) is being prepared under the Connecticut Environ- mental Policy Act (CEPA) in conjunction with the Munici- pal Development Plan (MDP). * The population in New London has been declining since 1960 and has not been lower since the 1930's. The unem- ployment rate in New London as of June 1998 was 7.6%, as compared to the nearby urban mu.icipalities of Nor- wich at 6.3% and Groton at 4.7%, and statewide unem- ployment of 4.0%. The end of the “cold war” and reduction in defense contracts has had a significant local economic impact. The project area is located in the southeast part of New London, encompassing approximately 90 acres of primar- ily residential and commercial areas. The project area ~~Yneludes the U.S. Navy's closed Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) along the Thames River, the regional Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF), and the adjacent Fort Trumbull area, including all or portions of Howard, 240 Hamilton, Shaw, Harris, Trumbull, Walbach, Nameaug, Smith, Chelsea, Goshen, and East Streets, and Pequot Avenue. For discussion purposes, the project area, which is generally referred to as the Fort Trumbull area, has been segmented into several smaller areas as shown on Figure 1.1-4 and on the front cover of this document. These are referenced as the Gateway Area, Fort Area, NUWC, and Lower Pequot Avenue Area. The Fort Trumbull area has been targeted for evaluation under the municipal development planning process for numerous reasons. The majority of structures in the area are in relatively poor condition, exhibit a high amount of functional obsolescence, and have limited market poten- tial. Vacancy rates are notably high (82% vacancy of non- residential buildings and 20% vacancy of residential units). Tax revenues in the MDP area (+$325,000) are quite low considering it comprises an area of approxi- mately 90 acres. An 800,000 square foot clinical research development facility proposed by Pfizer, Inc. (to be located immediately to the south and outside of the MDP area) dnd reuse of a portion of the NUWC site for development of a state park creates an opportunity for improvement of the Fort Trum- bull area consistent with these planned projects. This also presents opportunities to stimulate the local economy, improve waterfront access along the Thames River, make Planning Process In June of 1998, the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development issued an Environmental 241 Assessment (EA) for the Fort Trumbull] MDP area which concluded that the project could potentially have a signifi- cant effect on the environment. Several major areas of concern were identified in the EA, including the possible acquisition of residential properties and relocation of residents; adequacy of the existing water supply; conges- tion and traffic safety issues; historic importance and archaeological significance of the project area; flooding; and stormwater management. As a result of DECD’s finding, the subject Environmental Impact Evaluation has been undertaken. The EIE process began in late June 1998. Numerous consultations were engaged to assist in specific phases of the work. Preliminary findings were discussed at numer- ous neighborhood meetings. Input and review comments public on the Draft EIE. Input has also been solicited from local, state and federal agencies. Upon completion of a 45 day public comment period of the DEIE (to be concluded on December 28, 1998), the Con- necticut Department of Economic and Community Devel- opment must forward the following information to the Office of Policy and Management, for determination of the adequacy of the evaluation: (1) all public notice documentation; (2) a brief summary of the public hearing, if one is held; (3) comments received from all interested par- ties, (4) the agency decision relative to proceeding 242 (5) a discussion of the intentions for initiation of This constitutes the Record of Decision. The CEPA process concludes with the review of the EIE and Record of Decision by OPM and their determination of whether or not regulatory requirements have been satis- fied. The final EIE is the basis for the implementation of the project. A municipal Development Plan is then created consistent with the findings of the CEPA process. A mandatory public hearing is held upon completion of the MDP. Procedures for the adoption of the MDP are set forth in Section 32-224(c) of the Connecticut General Statutes. This process must include a finding by the OPM that the plan is not inimical to the overall goals and objectives of the state. Upon obtaining such a finding, the plan would then be legally adopted by the city and approved by DECD. Project Goals The project goals for the Fort Trumbull area have been defined as follows: 1. To create a world-class development that ~—— will complement the undertakings of Pfizer, Inc. and set a standard for development in New London. 2. To create an economic asset for the City of New London that will create jobs, generate tax revenue, and result in spin-off economic activity. 3. To maximize public access to the waterfront and, in doing so, encourage uses which are 243 water dependent or which will be enhanced by water access and views. 4. To develop a project which will help build momentum for the revitalization of down- town New London and the balance of the city to the benefit of the city’s residents and visitors. — Alternatives Evaluated A variety of potential uses have been evaluated for the Fort Trumbull area. However, a preferred alternative has not yet been selected. It is anticipated that the ultimate selected preferred plan may be a hybrid of several of the alternatives evaluated herein. Major project components are highlighted below: ¢ Approximately 16 acres of the land currently occupied by the U.S. Naval Undersea Warfare Center will be transferred to the Department of Environmental! Pro- tection to establish the Fort Trumbull State Park, providing open space for passive and active recreation as well as preservation of this historic site as a cul- tural resource. One small parcel of the NUWC site will remain in the possession of the U.S. Coast Guard and a second will remain in the possession of the U.S. Navy for their continued use. The remainder of the property is anticipated to be improved and developed, either through public sale or through another form of conveyance. ¢ Upgrades to the existing regional Water Pollution Control Facility are planned to reduce odors, improve aesthetics, and improve the quality of treated waste- water. 244 ¢ Stormwater quality will be improved via the installa- tion of an updated stormwater collection and treat- ment system. ¢ Roadway and traffic improvements are planned to accommodate increased projected traffic in the area and to overcome existing deficiencies. ¢ The following land use alternatives are under consid- eration: Alternative No. 1 — No Action Alternative No. 2 - Recreation/Tourism Alternative No. 3 —- Residential/Commercial Alternative No. 4 - Business Campus Alternative No. 5 —- Mixed Use 1 Alternative No. 6 —- Mixed Use 2 Various project elements are common to all of the alterna- tives except the no action alternative. They include the redevelopment of the NUWC site as a state historic park, a continuous riverfront walkway, water dependent uses at Columbia Cove, Shaw’s Cove, and along Bentley Creek, and research and development land use west of Pequot Avenue. A brief description of the six alternatives follows. Alternative 1 - No Action - One of the requirements of CEPA is to evaluate a no action alternative. In this par- ticular instance, no action is somewhat unusual in that other activities and plans would likely proceed even if there were no MDP action. Under the no action scenario, it is assumed that the Navy would proceed with disposition of the NUWC property as 245 planned prior to the introduction of the MDP process, in accordance with the approved Local Reuse Authority’s (LRA) preferred plan. The LRA’s preferred plan indicated disposition of the NUWC property through conveyance of the southern portion to the Department of Environmental Protection for future development of a state park, public benefit conveyance of a portion of the property near Columbia Cove for maritime uses, and public sale of the Alternative 2 - Recreation/Tourism - This alternative complements the proposed Fort Trumbull State Park, concentrating recreational, educational, and cultural uses east of the railroad in the Fort Area and at NUWC. Office and retail uses are proposed west of the railroad in the Gateway Area. Alternative 3 - Residential/Commercial - This alter- native highlights a residential component throughout the MDP area, intermixed with the state park and open space recreational areas, and minor amounts of office and retail uses proposed in the Gateway Area. Alternative 4 - Business Campus - This alternative focuses the majority of land use in the form of office campus and a supporting hotel/conference center, with small amounts of retail and residential uses in the Gate- way Area. Alternatives 5 & 6 - Mixed Use 1 & 2 - These two mixed use alternatives incorporate recreational, residential, commercial office, retail, and hotel/conference uses in different proportions and arrangements. 246 Potential Impacts The following presents brief summaries of potential impacts that would be anticipated as a result of implemen- tation of this project. Land Use and Zoning Impacts - The majority of the Fort Trumbull MDP area has been designated in the Conservation and Development Policies Plan for Connecti- cut as an Urban Area Regional Center. Regional Centers encompass land areas containing traditional core commer- cial, industrial, transportation, specialized institutional services, and facilities of intertown significance. State policy seeks to concentrate economic development to the extent possible in major urban centers, promoting infill development and intensification where appropriate. It is also intended to promote stability of urban communities and to support staged, orderly growth of urban develop- ment. Regional and local policies and plans are reflective of the regional center designation. This is also reflected in local zoning ordinances of the Fort Trumbull area. Land use and zoning impacts vary among the six land use alternatives. Alternatives 2 (Recreation/Tourism) and 3 (Residential/Commercial) do not generally meet the goals and objectives of local, regional, and statewide land use policies, whereas Alternatives 1 (No Action), 4 (Business Campus), 5 (Mixed Use 1), and 6 (Mixed Use 2) do. Socioeconomic Impacts - All six of the land use alterna- tives would have a positive impact on job creation and generation of tax revenues. These are summarized in Table ES-1 247 Neighborhood/Housing Impacts - Varying degrees of neighborhood relocation would be required to implement Alternatives 2, 4, 5, and 6. Extensive mitigative measures have been proposed to offset these impacts. In the “no action” alternative there would be no relocation, since all of the land use changes would occur at the NUWC prop- erty. In Alternatives 2 (Recreation/Tourism), 4 (Business Campus), and 6 (Mixed Use 2), most or all of the existing residents and businesses would be relocated. Alternatives 3 (Residential/Commercial) and 5 (Mixed Use 1), have the potential to retain some, but not all, of the existing resi- dents and businesses. Aesthetic/Visual Resource Impacts - A\l of the Alterna- tives would result in aesthetic and visual improvements. Alternative 1 would only involve the NUWC property, and therefore improvements would be less widespread. Imple- mentation of Alternatives 2 through 6 would result in aesthetic improvements to the Water Pollution Control Facility, creation of a waterfront riverwalk, landscaping improvements, and demolition of decrepit buildings. 248 TABLE ES-1 Summary of Socioeconomic Impacts Land Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Use No Recreation/ Residential’ | Business Mixed Mixed Category Action Tourism |(Commercial| Campus Use 1 Use 2 Direct Employment —Low 1,080 506 335 1,332 574 591 Direct Employment — High 1,779 1,019 710 2,289 1,099 1,124 Indirect Job Creation — Low 802 337 220 949 385 394 Indirect Job Creation — High 1,321 659 452 1,610 720 734 Construction Costs — Low $3,200,000} 28,231,500) 40,131,680| 56,752,040 | 43,713,320) 48,943,320 Construction Costs — High $12,000,000; 58,098,330} 64,249,500! 104,202,900 | 72,893,250} 79,402,750 Construction Wages — Low $1,440,000; 12,704,175| 18,059,256] 25,538,428 | 19,670,994| 22,024,494 Construction Wages — High $5,400,000! 26,144,249| 28,912,275! 46,891,305 | 32,801,963| 35,731,238 Construction Employment — 38 331 470 665 512 574 Low Construction Employment — 141 681 753 1,222 854 931 High Tax Revenues — Low $61,152 375,704 603,116 931,651 671,562 771,507 Tax Revenues — High $229,320 946,459 1,064,008 1,838,437| 1,229,190} 1,353,587 Source: Marshal! Valuation Service and RKG Associates, Inc. 249 Public Utilities and Services Impacts - Utility im- provements would be necessary under all of the alterna- tives. This work is anticipated to be conducted within existing or future roadway right-of-ways and not impact adjacent land uses. Under all land use alternatives, the existing storm drainage system will need to be modified to accommodate new roadway alignments and improvements and to correct deficiencies in the existing system. The storm drainage systems will incorporate stormwater quality renovation elements and/or infiltration systems to meet stormwater general permit requirements. Energy Use and Conservation - There is no known data readily available on historic energy use in the Fort Trum- bull MDP area and guidelines have not been prepared for future energy use. In general, it is anticipated that new buildings will be more energy efficient than the older existing buildings, and will need to conform to or exceed current standards. High electrical-demand uses are not proposed under any of the identified land use alternatives. However, it is antici- pated that individual users will take advantage of energy- saving measures and available incentives. Additionally, future development projects will be designed in accordance with applicable state and local building codes with respect to electrical components, lighting, and HVAC. Cultural Resources Impacts - Potential impacts to cultural resources would result under all of the land use alternatives. However, extensive mitigation measures have been proposed to offset these impacts. The Connecti- cut Historic Commission has reviewed and agreed with the proposed course of action. 250 Traffic and Parking Impacts - Al) of the land use Alternatives will result in additional traffic in the Fort Trumbull area. The “no action” alternative (Alternative 1) results in the highest peak hour traffic. Under Alterna- tives 2 through 6, mitigation measures have been proposed to offset these impacts. Water Resource Impacts - Minimal water resource impacts are anticipated under any of the alternatives. Improvement to stormwater management is expected in any case. Flood Hazard Impacts - Much of the Fort Trumbull MDP area is located in the flood hazard zone. Redevelop- ment of a portion or all of the area would present an opportunity to floodproof buildings or construct new buildings in accordance with FEMA and DEP standards. An evacuation plan would be developed under Alternatives 2 through 6, as well as roadway modifications to improve ingress and egress in the area. Physical Environment Impacts - Minimal physical impacts are anticipated under any of the alternatives. Air Quality Impacts - As there will be additional traffic generated as a result of implementation of any of the identified alternatives (including the no action alterna- tive), localized air quality impacts will also result. How- ever, these are expected to be minimal and will not be regionally significant. It should be noted that the “no action” alternative (i.e. no MDP action) would result in the highest peak hour traffic, with no associated roadway improvement mitigation. Noise Impacts - There will be increases in off-site traffic levels, particularly along Howard Street and Bank Street 261 as a result of the planned ‘fizer facility as well as pro- posed uses within the Fort Trumbull MDP area. It is anticipated that increased traffic will create noise that will be consistent with an urban transportation hub. However, the geometric and lane improvements at intersections will minimize changes in noise from motor vehicles. Electrifi- cation of the Amtrak rail line is expected to lessen rail operation related noise. Solid Waste and Hazardous Materials Impacts - The need for and extent of site remediation will be governed by the relevant statutes and regulations affecting such activities. Implementation of any of the alternatives would _ result in the clean-up of contaminated soil, waste contain- ers, and aging material storage tanks. Cumulative Impacts Positive cumulative impacts are anticipated as a result of implementation of this project with respect to economic growth through job and tax revenue creation, parks and recreational facilities, public access, wetland restoration, aesthetics, site remediation, improved stormwater man- agement, and additional flood protection. Negative im- pacts are expected with respect to traffic, air quality, noise, cultural resources, neighborhood relocation, and possibly marine water resources. Unavoidable Impacts Unavoidable impacts caused by demolition and construc- tion are anticipated with respect to air and noise quality, as well as short-term increased equipment traffic and use. 252 Unavoidable long term impacts are expected in the areas of traffic, air quality, noise, and cultural resources. Lrreversible and Lrretrievable Commitment of Resources The implementation of any of the six alternatives would consume non-renewable resources during the construction and implementation (i.e., construction supplies, fuel, etc). Since these resources can not be reused, they are consid- ered to be irreversibly and irretrievably committed. Similarly, disposal of demolition material at a landfill and/or solid waste disposal facility will take up capacity in such facilities which is irreversible and irretrievable. Mitigation Opportunities Mitigation opportunities have been evaluated for each of the identified resources. The areas that have been evalu- ated in the greatest detail and for which the greatest number measures have been proposed are those which have the greatest potential to have impacts. These include traffic and transportation, neighborhood relocation, sensitive cultural resources, and flood hazard areas. 1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED 1.1 Introduction 1.1.1 Project Background The New London Development Corporation (NLDC), in association with the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD), is undertaking a planning project adjacent to the 1.1- 1 is a location plan of the City of New London and 253 New London County. Figure 1.1-2 shows the project area in relation to downtown New London. The pro- ject area includes the U.S. Navy’s closed Naval Un- dersea Warfare Center (NUWC), the regional Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF), and the adjacent Fort Trumbull area as shown in Figure 1.1-3. The pro- ject area is also adjacent to the Shaw’s Cove Redevel- opment Area. NLDC is a nonprofit, private economic development organization originally formed in 1978. The corpora- tion was established with the authority to raise and borrow funds, manage projects, acquire and sell prop- erties, and engage in any activity related to the pro- gress and general welfare of the community. Plans for the project area will be prepared in accor- dance with a Municipal Development Planning proc- ess under Section 130, 132, and/or 588(1) of the Connecticut General Statutes. The planning process may result in a recommendation to undertake rede- velopment of all or part of the planning area. This Environmental Impact Evaluation (EIE) is being pre- en SSeS Dee Act (CEPA) in conjunction with the Municipal Devel- opment Plan (MDP). An Environmental Impact Statement is also being prepared for the disposition of the NUWC property, but has not yet been issued by the Department of the Navy. The driving force behind this project is the City of New London’s desire to revitalize its economy by fo- cusing on the potential offered in the Thames River corridor. The need to stimulate the local economy is heightened by the closing of the NUWC facility in 1996. As many as 1,500 people (not including contrac- NN at ee in the late 1980's (personal communication, John Templeton, September 30, 1998). 254 A key catalyst for development of this area is the pro- posed Pfizer, Inc. global research facility to be located immediately to the south of the MDP boundary. New London Mills previously occupied the site on which Pfizer has proposed its development. The project will involve a private investment of approximately $150 million and is designed to accommodate approxi- mately 2,000 employees. +e a Fort Trumbull MDP Area - New London, Connecticut Draft Environmental Impact Evaluation - November 1998 8 Miles 257 -" pbull MDP Area - New London, Connecticut 438 Figure 1.1-3 Project Area /\/_ MDP Project Border boviroumental impact Evaluation - November 1998 (New Landan, FEMA, and US Navy Irucnded for plarrang not for design use. 258 In order to induce private investment into the Fort Trumbull area, the State of Connecticut and the City of New London have committed to invest over $64 million. Major categories of public investment include $20 million for the creation of Fort Trumbull State Park on a portion of the NUWC property; $7 million for the upgrade of the regional sewage treatment fa- cility which is located in the Fort Trumbull area; $9 million for environmental remediation of sites; and $24 million for the preparation of a comprehensive plan for the area, for property acquisition, infrastruc- ture development, and other activities to support im- plementation of the plan. An additional $10.5 million will be available for relocation assistance. Of this amount, $10 million will be in the form of Connecticut Housing Finance Authority (CHFA) low rate financing loan money. Two hundred and fifty thousand dollars will be available in the form of down payment assis- tance to residents, and an additional $250,000 will be available through Small Business Assistance Program relocation funding. 1.1.2 Project Location The City of New London is located in southeastern Connecticut. It is a waterfront community, along the tidal estuary of the Thames River and Long Island Sound. New London is only 5.79 square miles in size, making it geometrically the second smallest munici- pality in the State of Connecticut. The estimated 1998 population is 23,860 people based on data published by Claritas, Inc. (State of Connecticut DECD popula- tion estimates for 1995 are somewhat higher at 26,920 people.) The community supports several insti- tutions, including Connecticut College, Mitchell Col- lege, and the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. Nearly 54% of the total lard area of New London is occupied by 259 nonprofit institutions which are exempt from local property taxes. The project area is approximately 90 acres in size and includes a residential and commercial area of ap- proximately 115 parcels. The NUWC site alone is 32 acres. For discussion purposes, the MDP area has been segmented into several smaller areas as de- scribed below. Figure 1.1-4 delineates the various pro- ject planning areas. A brief description of each follows: Gateway Area — The Gateway Area-is envisioned to be the primary entrance to the MDP area and encom- passes the land area to the west of the Amtrak rail- way. It includes properties on both sides of Howard Street from its intersection with Hamilton Street to the junction with Shaw Street and Trumbull Street. The Gateway Area also includes properties on Hamil- ton Street between Howard Street and the railroad tracks, as well as properties along Harris Street to the south. This area is currently occupied primarily by commercial properties and parking, intermixed with single- and multi-family residential dwellings, and vacant properties. It occupies approximately 21 acres. Thames River 09 261 Lower Pequot Avenue Area — The Lower Pequot Ave- nue Area is a small portion of the MDP area, ap- proximately 1.3 acres in size. It is limited to the four parcels located just south of the junction of Shaw and Trumbull Streets, between the railroad tracks to the west, and Pequot Avenue to the east. This area in- cludes two vacant residential properties, one vacant lot, and one industrial use parcel. Fort Area — The Fort Area includes all of the property to the east of the Amtrak railroad within the MDP area, exclusive of NUWC. This includes the Amtrak property immediately adjacent to the railroad tracks, as well as properties along Trumbull Street, Nameaug Street, East Street, Walbach Street, Smith Street, Goshen Street, and Chelsea Street. A prominent physical feature of this area is the regional Water Pol- lution Control Facility (WPCF), which occupies both sides of Trumbull Street from Nameaug Street to Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC) - 1.1-5 shows the NUWC property and building desig- nations. Building references by name and number are listed in Appendix C. The NUWC property encom- passes approximately 32 acres along the Thames aff The current plan for the property as adopted by the local Reuse Authority (LRA) contemplates the dispo- sition of 16 acres to the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for the establish- 262 for possible future development; and several smaller parcels, including a 1.5-acre parcel and a 0.1l-acre parcel, to be retained by the U.S. Coast Guard and the Navy, respectively. The reuse plan for the prop- erty is being reevaluated as part of the MDP process. The recommendation of the MDP process will be pre- sented to the LRA for its consideration. Pfizer Site — The Pfizer site is located on the 24-acre property which was historically occupied by New London Mills, a manufacturer of linoleum. The New London Mills complex was dismantled in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Although the Pfizer site is not part of the Municipal Development Plan (MDP) and is not subject to the CEPA process, this facility is a neighboring property which, when developed, will substantially contribute to the city’s economic devel- opment objectives. It is being considered in the EIE, primarily due to the cumulative nature of activities in the area. NUWC New London Site Plan veal Columbia Cove : i | 3 >. we 300 ie) — Property Boundary ee “ — ; a eae Feet *_y Buildings _ 00 Scare m Meters Mapping provided by TAMS Consultants, Inc. FIGURE 1.1-5 U 442 £92 264 1.1.3 Project Chronology The following is a chronology of major activities, events, and milestones to date relating to the Fort Trumbull MDP area: 1997 - New London Development Corporation (NLDC) reforms to assist the City of New London in its economic development process. January 1998 — The State Bond Commission au- thorizes $5.35 million in bonds to support plan- ning activities and property acquisition to be undertaken by NLDC in support of the project and $10 million as the first installment toward the investment in the creation of Fort Trumbull State Park. February 1998 — Pfizer Inc. announces its inten- tion to develop a facility for clinical trials on the former New London Mills site. April 1998 —- NLDC hires an executive director, its first employee. The New London City Council gives initial designation to NLDC to prepare a Municipal Development Plan for the Fort Trum- bull area. April 1998 —- NLDC holds the first in a series of informal, neighborhood meetings to include and incorporate public comment on the MDP process. The City Council also creates a committee of six people (two from the Local Reuse Authority (LRA), two from the NLDC, and two from the State of Connecticut) to evaluate the current LRA plan for the disposition of the NUWC prop- erty and to consider asking for a delay in the public sale of a portion of this property. May 1998 — The New London City Council gives authority to NLDC to prepare plans for the Fort 265 Trumbull area under any of three state statutes (Section 130, 132, and/or 588(1)) and establishes the boundaries of the planning area. The State Bond Commission approves the second install- ment of $2.9 million to fund the preparation of a Municipal Development Plan for the area and to fund property acquisition activities. NLDC initi- ates requests for qualifications from consultants to prepare various aspects of the Municipal De- velopment Plan and Environmental Impact Evaluation under CEPA. May 1998 — A consultant is hired by the Water Pollution Control Authority to conduct a study of the possible upgrades to the regional WPCF. June 1998 — The City of New London authorizes the conveyance of the former New London Mills site to Pfizer, with the contingency that the State of Connecticut commits to resolve or guarantee resolution of all liens on the property. A total of $6.1 million in additional state bonding authority is approved to support the project. June 1998 — The Local Reuse Authority formally requests of the Navy that public sale of proper- ties on the NUWC site be delayed until February 28, 1999 to allow time for the preparation of a comprehensive plan for the Fort Trumbull area through the Municipal Development Plan proc- ess. This request is approved by the Navy. June 1998 — The final Environmental Assess- ment under the Connecticut Environmental Pro- tection Act is issued by the Department of Economic and Community Development, with the recommendation to proceed with a full Envi- ronmental Impact Evaluation. 266 ¢ July 1998 —- Planning consulting team is hired for the CEPA process and Municipal Development Plan Preparation. 1.2 The CEPA Process 1.2.1 Overview of Regulation The Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (CEPA), established in Sections 22a-1 through 22a-1h of the Connecticut General Statutes, recognizes the complex relationship between the natural environment and human actions, including population growth, high- density urbanization, industrial expansion, natural and cultural resources, and technological advances. The Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (Sec- tions 22a-1 through 22a-la-12) outline a process whereby, through coordination with other state, local, regional and federal governments, as well as public and private entities, a sponsoring state agency can evaluate and minimize the projected impacts of a pro- ject to the resources of the state. State funds will be utilized in the Fort Trumbull MDP area, thus triggering the CEPA process. The sponsor- ing state agency is the Connecticut Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD). NLDC is the implementing agency. 1.2.2 Determination of Environmental Signifi- cance A major function of the CEPA process is the determi- nation of whether a project will have a significant ef- fect. Significant effect is defined as substantial adverse impact on the environment. Agencies prepar- ing such CEPA documents must consider the follow- ing two factors: (1) direct and indirect effects and, (2) cumulative impacts. 267 Environmental Assessment The first phase of the CEPA process is development of an Environmental Assessment (EA). In this work task, existing data and information are evaluated in a relatively fast track process to assess whether a pro- ject may potentially cause a significant env'ronmental impact. In some cases, a determination is made that additional site specific and more intensive study is necessary to make that determination. In other, less complex cases, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is issued at the conclusion of the EA process. In July 1998, the Connecticut Department of Eco- nomic and Community Development issued an Envi- ronmental Assessment for the Fort Trumbull MDP area and determined that the project could potentially have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of this is included as Appendix A. Several major areas of concern were identified in the EA, including the pos- sible acquisition of residential properties and reloca- tion of residents; adequacy of the existing water supply; congestion and traffic safety issues; historic importance and archaeological significance of the pro- ject area; flooding; and stormwater management. As a result of DECD’s finding, the subject Environmental Impact Evaluation has been conducted. Environmental Impact Evaluations The Environmental Impact Evaluation (EIE) process is intended to be an early planning process during which options are discussed and the impact of each alternative action is compared. Significant issues are identified and analyzed in detail, allowing participa- tion of interested and/or affected agencies and per- sons. Public input and participation is a major component of the CEPA process. Early scoping and information exchange is essential. Section 6.0 of this document contains a detailed accounting of the scoping, consul- tation, and coordination process thet has taken place to date. The overall process for public participation is summarized as follows: ¢ A period of no less than forty-five (45) days must be provided for notice, distribution, and review of the Draft Environmental Impact Evaluation by any interested parties. ¢ Upon receiving comment, the sponsoring agency must review comments, perform any additional environmental study and analysis, or amend the evaluation as appropriate. It is the sponsoring agency's responsibility to respond to all substan- tive comments received. ¢ A public hearing may be held, if requested in ac- cordance with state statutes, regulations, and Section 22a-la-11 of the regulations. A period of no less than thirty (30) days following the date of availability of the EIE must be provided before tion of the adequacy of the evaluation: (1) all public notice documentation; (2) a brief summary of the public hearing, if one is held, (3) comments received from all interested parties; (4) the agency decision relative to proceeding with the proposed action; and (5) a discussion of the inten- (final EIE docuses and the measures for miti- gation identified ‘ .erein). ¢ The CEPA process concludes with the review of the EIE and Record of Decision by OPM and their determination of whether or not regulatory requirements have been satisfied. The final EIE is the basis for the implementation of the project. ¢ A Municipal Development Plan is then created consistent with the findings of the CEPA process. A mandatory public hearing is held upon comple- tion of the MDP. Procedures for the adoption of the MDP are set forth in Section 32-224(c) of the Connecticut General Statutes. This process must include a finding by the OPM that the plan is not inimical to the overall goals and objectives of the state. Upon obtaining such a finding, the plan would then be legally adopted by the city and approved by DECD. 1.3 Project Goals To date, input has been solicited from local, state and federal agencies. At the local level, this has included various departments and agencies within the City of New London, educational institutions located within the city, the business community, and the New Lon- of Policy and Management, (OPM), and the Depart- ment of Transportation (DOT) have been included. At the federal level, the U.S. Navy and their interests at the NUWC property, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) have been 14 270 represented. This process creates a vehicle for com- munity input and involvement. The goals for the Fort Trumbull area have been iden- tified by the committee of six as follows: 1. To create a world-class development that will complement the undertakings of Pfizer, Inc. and set a standard for development in New London. 2. To create an economic asset for the City of New London that will create jobs, generate tax reve- ue, and result in spin-off economic activity. 3. To maximize public access to the waterfront and, in doing so, encourage uses which are water de- pendent or which will bo enhanced ty water ao cess and views. 4. To develop a project which will help build mo- mentum for the revitalization of downtown New London and the ba’ance of the city to the benefit of the city’s resideats and visitors. These goals have been carried through the planning and evaluation of alternatives. Proposed Action A variety of potential uses have been evaluated for the Fort Trumbull area. However, a preferred alterna- tive has not yet been selected. It is anticipated that the ultimate selected preferred plan may be a hybrid of several of the alternatives evaluated herein. Major project components are highlighted below: ¢ Approximately 16 acres of the land currently oc- cupied by the Naval Undersea Warfare Center will be transferred to the Department of Envi- ronmental Protection to establish the Fort 271 Trumbull State Park, providing open space for passive and active recreation as well as preserva- tion of this historic site as a cultural resource. One small parcel of the NUWC site will remain in the possession of the U.S. Coast Guard and a second will remain in the possession of the U.S. Navy for their continued use. The remainder of the property is anticipated to be improved and developed, either through public sale or through another form of conveyance. for the remainder of the Fort Trumbull area. The following-land use alternatives are under consid- eration. These are described in detail in Section 3.0 of this document. Alternative No. 1 — No Action Alternative No. 2 — Recreation/Tourism Alternative No. 3 — Residential/Commercial Alternative No. 4 - Business Campus Alternative No. 5 — Mixed Use 1 Alternative No. 6 —- Mixed Use 2 Upgrades to the existing regional Water Pollu- tion Control Facility are planned to reduce odors, improve aesthetics, and improve the quality of treated wastewater. Stormwater quality will be improved via the in- stallation of an updated stormwater collection 272 15 Relationship to Other Projects and Planning Documents For the purposes of this EIE, numerous planning documents have been evaluated in the context of the Fort Trumbull area to ensure that this planning effort is consistent with relevant state, regional, and local State Planning Documents Conservation and Development, Policies Plan for Connecticut, 1998-2003, Office of Policy and Management, Hartford, CT. Connecticut Environmental Goals and Indica- tors, Connecticut Institute of Water Resources, University of Connecticut, September 30, 1996. Regional Planning Documents Southeastern Council of Governments, Land Use, 1990, February 1991. Southeastern Council of Governments, Population and Housing, 1990, March 1992. Southeastern Council of Governments, Social In- dicators, 1990, February 1995. Southeastern Council of Governments, Proposed 273 Guide for Southeastern Connecticut (DRAFT), July 1997. Local Planning Documents ¢ Plan of Conservation and Development, City of New London, CT. Prepared by: The Office of De- velopment and Planning and the New London Plan of Development Steering Committee, March 1, 1997 (Adopted April 3, 1997). ¢ Zoning Regulations, City of New London, CT, Planning and Zoning Commission, as amended through September 1, 1998. Other Related Documents A great deal of work has been conducted to date by the Navy on the NUWC property. The NUWC prop- erty lies within the MDP boundary and, therefore, the EIE has considered following planning and site inves- tigation documents: ¢ Feasibility Report, Naval Undersea Warfare Center, Fort Trumbull State Park, June 18, 1997, Amended: December 1997. ¢ Implementation Strategy, Naval Undersea War- fare Center, New London, CT, Economics Re- search Associates and Sasaki Associates, Inc., April 17, 1997. ¢ Redevelopment Strategy, Naval Undersea War- fare Center, New London, CT, Economics Re- search Associates and Sasaki Associates, Inc., April 17, 1997. ¢ Draft Cultural Resources Survey; Naval Under- sea Warfare Center; New London, Connecticut; TAMS Consultants, Inc.; April 1998. 274 Additionally, the EIE has considered the neighboring Pfizer, Inc. development through ongoing coordination with Pfizer representatives. Pfizer is planning an 800,000 square foot global research and development facility. The site of the Pfizer complex is located im- mediately to the south of the Fort Trumbull MDP area, between Pequot Avenue and Trumbull Street, on property which was previously occupied by New Lon- don Mills. 2.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 2.1 Land Use An understanding of land use plans and policies at the local, regional and state levels is essential to the analysis of potential alterations of land uses. The following discus- sion sets the framework of land use policies which apply to the Fort Trumbull MDP area. Consistency of identified project alternatives (presented in Section 3.0) with these plans, policies, statutes, and regulations is evaluated in Section 4.0 of this document. 2.1.1 Statewide Land Use Conservation and Development The following discussion presents portions of the Con- servation and Development Policies Plan for Connecti- cut (1998-2003) as they relate to the Fort Trumbull MDP project. Italicized sections are direct excerpts from the Plan. Not all Plan policies are included in this discussion, as they may not directly apply. For an expanded review of the Plan, the reader is directed to the full 141-page document. Connecticut (1998-2003) is a statement of the state's growth, resource management, and public investment 275 policies. The Plan provides a policy and planning framework for the administrative and programmatic actions and capital and operational investment deci- sions of state government, which influence the future growth and development of the state. The objective of the Plan is to guide a balanced response to human, environmental, and economic needs in a manner which best suits the future of Connecticut. The Con- necticut General Assembly, in accordance with Sec- tions 16a-24 through 16a-33 of the Connecticut General Statutes, established the Plan. Public Act 91-395 requires state agencies to be consis- tent with the Plan when undertaking certain actions, including authorization of state grant money in ex- cess of $100,000 for the acquisition, development, or improvement of real property. The MDP project will receive state funding as described in Section 1.0 of this document. Therfore consistency with the state Plan is evaluated herein. The accompanying Conservation and Development Plan Locational Guide Map apportions the state into land categories according to each area’s characteristics and suitability for different forms of development or conservation activities. The categories of land use are designated on the Locational Guide Map as follows: Urban Areas ¢ Regional Centers ¢ Neighborhood Conservation Areas ¢ Growth Areas Areas of Environmental Concern ¢ Existing Preserved Open Space ¢ Preservation Areas ¢ Conservation Areas 276 Rural Areas ¢ Rural Community Centers ¢ Rural Land Figure 2.1-1 shows the statewide conservation and devel- opment plan land designations for the project area. The majority of the Fort Trumbull area is classified as a Regional Center, with most of the balance of the project area classified as Conservation Area. Small areas of Preservation and Existing Preserved Open Space are also designated on the Locational Guide Map. Descriptions of land use designations in the project area are presented below. Regional Centers Regional Centers encompass land areas containing traditional core area commercial, industrial, trans- portation, specialized institutional services, and fa- cilities of intertown significance. Section 4-66b of the General Statutes sets forth the following urban goals to be used to assess consistency of a proposed action with state policy: ¢ to revitalize the economic base of our urban areas by rebuilding older commercial and industrial ar- eas and encouraging new enterprises to locate in the central cities in order to protect existing jobs and create new job opportunities needed to provide meaningful economic opportunity for inner city residents; ¢ to revitalize urban neighborhoods to reduce the iso- lation of various income, age, and minority groups through the promotion of fair and balanced hous- ing opportunities for low and moderate-income residents; Thames River art Trumbull MDP Area - New London, Connecticut [ Environmental Impact Evaluation - November 1998 LLG 278 ¢ to revitalize the quality of life for the residents of our urban areas by ensuring quality education, comprehensive health care, access to balanced transportation, adequate recreational facilities, re- sponsive public safety, coordinated effective human services programs, decent housing, and employment opportunities; by preserving the scarce resources of pure air and clean water; and by ensuring full and equal rights and opportunities for all people to reap the economic and social benefits of our society; and © to coordinate the conservatio.: and growth of all ar- eas of our state to ensure that each area preserves its unique character and sense of community and further ensure a balanced and prudent use of our state’s scarce resources. State policy seeks to concentrate economic develop- ment to the extent possible in major urban centers, promoting infill development and intensification where appropriate. It is also intended to promote sta- bility of urban communities and to support staged, orderly growth of urban development. The highest priority has been assigned to affirma- tively supporting rehabilitation and revitalization of the economic, social, and physical environment of Re- gional Centers. State policy supports a range of public facilities, services, and amenities that serve to en- courage private investment in development forms consistent with urban strategies. As a result, the fol- lowing approach and guidelines are among those identified in the Conservation and Development Poli- cies Plan for Growth Areas (i.e. lands near Regional Centers that provide the opportunity for staged urban expansion generally in conformance with municipal or regional development plans). 279 target economic development assistance emphasiz- ing site cleanup, land assembly, structural reha- bilitation; and the location of labor-intensive businesses to revitalize the economic base of Re- gional Centers, to encourage new enterprises and create new opportunities for urban residents; give priority to infrastructure proposals that pro- vide needed growth capacity in Regional Centers; support new product development and facilities for start-up firms, especially those that provide some entry level employment opportunities and which are strategically suited to their communities (can com- pete in local markets or complement a regional eco- nomic cluster); scrutinize regulatory processes and seek to simplify, streamline, or eliminate those rules that unduly hinder economic development in urban areas, while ensuring continuing efficient protection of public safety, health and the environment; locate all appropriate state facilities within urban areas with preference to sites in Regional Centers; promote recreational uses of urban rivers and their banks as part of a greenway system and the protec- tion, interpretation, and public use of other urban natural resources; develop heritage parks where appropriate to foster tourism and recreational opportunities and to dis- play and interpret local history; promote, to the extent possible, the concentration of major facilities on public transportation routes at employment densities of at least 50 employees per acre. 280 Conservation Areas Conservation Areas represent a significant portion of the state and a myriad of land resources. Conserva- tion areas include flood fringe areas that are, or may be, defined under the National Flood Insurance Pro- grams, Connecticut’s Channel Encroachment Line Program, or the Coastal Area Management Program, as areas subjected to 100-year flood and not included in the floodway. Historic preservation areas are also included in Conservation Areas. To attain the widest range of beneficial public uses and appropriate development, state actions in Con- servation Areas should be designed to: * promote research, education, resource management, regulations, financial, and technical assistance or public acquisition as necessary to achieve proper use and protection of Conservation Areas; ¢ undertake or support only those uses that are com- patible with the resource or hazard of concern, con- sistent with evaluations of both direct and secondary impacts; ¢ demonstrate the lack of alternative sites, overriding social or economic concerns, and the lack of any reasonable alternative public or private uses for any proposal which is clearly and significantly in- compatible with conservation; and ¢ include mitigation measures necessary to both pro- tect against degradation and enhance environ- mental quality. Preservation and Existing Preserved Open Space Areas A narrow fringe of land along the waterfront edge within the MDP area has been classified as 281 Preservation Area, due to its proximity to the water- front and associated flood hazard characteristics. State policies regarding preservation areas promote preservation and management of these areas as open space. Plans and proposals that are incompatible with open space uses should demonstrate overriding public benefits and the lack of viable alternative sites. A small triangular parcel formed by Howard Street, Harris Street, and Shaw Street has been classified as Existing Preserved Open Space. It is unclear why this designation has been assigned, since this land area is currently developed. This area should be redesignated by OPM during its next revision to the Plan. 2.1.2 Regional Land Use The Southeastern Connecticut Region consists mostly of the suburban municipalities of Colchester, East Lyme, Griswold, Ledyard, Lisbon, Montville, Preston, Sprague, Stonington, and Waterford surrounded by the rural towns of Salem, Bozrah, Franklin, Volun- town, and North Stonington. Norwich, Groton, and New London are the urban centers, making up ap- proximately 11.3% of the 559.2 square miles of the Southeastern Connecticut Region. Approximately 21% of the region is occupied by inten- sive land uses, leaving a rather large portion (61%) of undeveloped lands. Several factors limit the ability to intensively develop areas in the southeastern Con- necticut region, including poorly drained soils, shal- low depth to bedrock, steep slopes, flood hazard areas, availability of utilities, ownership, zoning, financing, and regulatory jurisdictions of state and federal gov- ernments. The major development contributing to regional growth has occurred at low densities, more in the rural and suburban towns than the three urban mu- nicipalities, although urban growth continues along the Thames River corridor and the Long Island Sound coast, and more recently along Interstate 95. The region has had a historic dependence on defense related industries. The end of the Cold War signifi- cantly altered regional land use patterns, with the re- duction of defense-related industries and manu- facturing. It is further expected that dramatic changes will continue to occur with the increase in gional Conservation and Development Policy Guide for Southeastern Connecticut, October 1997) It is the goal of the Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments (SCCOG) that diversified and bal- anced development be sought in the region and oppor- tunities be created in an effort to minimize dependence on a single industry for employment, thereby reducing the strain of high unemployment rates on the region’s economic health. 2.1.3 Land Uses in the Project Vicinity Development in southeastern Connecticut is concen- trated primarily along the coastline of Long Island Sound and along the Thames River. Single-family and multi-family residential areas, commercial establish- ments, ~ ym pram ~ mama aceasta the densely developed coastline On the western bank of the Thames River, north of the project area, are the Shaw's Cove area and down- town New London which supports commercial uses and major transportation uses, including ferry ser- vices, passenger rail, and a major parking facility. Further north are the State Pier, the Goldstar Memo- rial bridge, Connecticut College and the U.S. Coast 283 Guard Academy. To the south along the western bank of the Thames River are Greens Harbor, Mitchell Col- lege, and Ocean Beach. Major land uses on the eastern bank of the Thames River, across from the project area, include General Dynamic’s Electric Boat facility, Pfizer Pharmaceuti- cal Company, and Fort Griswold. Other noteworthy land uses in the surrounding re- gional area include Crystal Mall in Waterford, Fox- woods Casino in Ledyard, Mohegan Sun Casino in Montville, and Mystic Seaport and Aquarium in Ston- ington. Nearby open space areas include Harkness Memorial State Park in Waterford, and Bluff Point State Park and Fort Griswold in Groton. _Land uses immediately surrounding the Fort Trum- bull area consist of waterfront uses dominated by harbors and marinas, commercial uses, and mixed residential and office/commercial areas. 2.1.4 Land Uses Within the MDP Boundary Figure 2.1-2 depicts existing land uses in the project area. Land use within the MDP area includes the NUWC facility, the regional Water Pollution Control Facility, a mixed residential/commercial area, and single- and multi-family neighborhoods. A description of land uses in the four project planning areas follows. 284 | t ry : Figure 2. 1-2 Land Uses in the Project Area rort Trumbull MDP Area - New London, Connecticut t Environmental Impact Evaluation - November 1998 Qtty of New Landon, and US Navy. Innended for planning inc. and HMA, Inc. Sources inchade Conmectiag DEP, any - not for desagn purposes. cae. GIS coverages developed by Milone & Mar Brmaxr — te] "Fr 285 Gateway Area The portion of the project area located to the west of the railroad tracks consists of commercial and indus- trial establishments intermixed with single- and multi-family residences. The Miner & Alexander Lumber Company is the major commercial establish- ment located between Hamilton Street and Shaw’s Cove. The largest building in this area is a 50,000 square foot office building located at 194 Howard Street. This structure has been vacant but is being renovated for office use. Businesses, office buildings, and residences occur along Howard Street. Several undeveloped parcels occur to the west of Howard Street along the western edge of the project area. Fort Area A major physical feature in the Fort Area is the re- gional Water Pollution Control Facility which is bor- dered by Nameaug Street to the west, Walbach Street to the north, Smith Street to the east, and Bentley Creek to the south. The facility is marked by the mas- sive treatment tanks and buildings associated with the wastewater treatment process. The remainder of the Fort Area consists primarily of single-family and multi-family residences, with sev- eral smal] businesses, restaurants, and commercial establishments. New London Seafood Distributors is located in the northern portion of the Fort Area near Columbia Cove, and Fort Trumbull Marina is located in the southern portion of the Fort Area along Bentley Creek. 286 Lower Pequot Avenue Area Land uses in the Lower Pequot Avenue Area are lim- ited to two vacant residential dwellings, one vacant lot, and one industrial property. NUWC Area The eastern portion of the project area, located to the east of Smith and East Streets and bordering the Thames River, is occupied by the Fort Trumbull U.S. Navy Reserve Base, Naval Undersea Warfare Center (NUWC). The base consists of a 19th century fort and blockhouse as well as various laboratories, adminis- trative offices, residences, and other buildings. Sev- eral piers on the Thames River are also associated with this facility. This facility has been closed since 1996 and most of the buildings are unoccupied. A staff of approximately 15 people continue to secure and maintain the facility. 2.1.5 History of Development Aerial photographs of the project area dating back to 1965 were examined to qualitatively dd®ument changes which have occurred over the last three dec- ades. A discussion of this review follows. 1965 aerial photograph In 1965, the project area was densely developed, with a general appearance similar to present day condi- tions. The following differences are noted: * The NUWC property had more lawn and parking areas and fewer buildings than it does today. A small bay was present at the southeastern corner of the property. ¢ The regional Water Pollution Control Facility on Trumbull Street appears much the same as today; 287 however, the portion of the facility to the north of Trumbull Street had not yet been constructed. This area supported residential houses, a ware- house, and undeveloped land. ¢ In the western portion of the project area, the un- developed land between Howard Street and Shaw Street appeared less overgrown than it does to- day. An open stormwater drainage channel ex- tended north to Hamilton Street. The large parcel between Howard Street and the railroad tracks, now the site of a large office building, supported several factory or warehouse buildings. 1970 aerial photograph Very little visible change took place within the project area between 1965 and 1970. The open stormwater drainage channel in the undeveloped land between Howard Street and Shaw Street had been piped un- derground at its northern end, and the remaining open channel appeared much the same as it does today. 1975 aerial photograph Significant changes occurred at the NUWC property between 1970 and 1975. Several buildings were con- structed, including Buildings 2, 80T, 96, 99, and 122T (see Figure 1.1-5). The small bay at the southeastern corner of NUWC had been filled in and a parking lot w.s constructed on top of it. The factory or warehouse buildings located on the large parcel between Howard Street and the railroad tracks were demolished, and the site was vacant. 1980 aerial photograph The portion of the regional Water Pollution Control Facility south of Trumbull Street was constructed between 1975 and 1980. The buildings that had 288 occupied the site were demolished, with the exception of a large building near the corner of Walbach Street and Smith Street, which remains standing today. The large parcel between Howard Street and the rail- road tracks remained vacant. 1986 aerial photograph A large office building had been constructed on the vacant parcel between Howard Street and the rail- road tracks. North of the study area, the realignment of Howard Street and the construction of the Shaw’s Cove office complex was completed. 1990 aerial photograph Between 1986 and 1990, a parking lot was con- structed at the regional Water Pollution Control Fa- cility on the corner of Nameaug Street and Walbach Street. Otherwise, very little visible change occurred in the area during this period. 1996 aerial photograph An additional sewage treatment tank was constructed at the regional Water Pollution Control Facility on the north side of Trumbull Street. 2.1.6 Zoning Three municipal zones occur within the project area as shown graphically in Figure 2.1-3. These are Waterfront Commercial/Industrial (WC-I]), General Commercial District (C-1), and the Waterfront Development District (WD). In many locations within the MDP area, land uses are inconsistent with the zoning designation. A description of zoning in the project planning areas follows. Ro natn es ER eS Cae ~ EK . + Trumbull MDP Area - New London, Connecticut Figure 2.3-1 ar~* Environmental Impact Evaluation - November 1998 Block and Lot GS coverages deveiaped by Mane & MacBroom. Designations « 68 22 0 0 0 89 22 2 0 ri 101 22 i3 id 19 102 29 r 7 8 105 22 22 34 rv 106 22 7 12 id io? | 21& 22 16 25 29 109 26 0 0 0 TOTAL:| 64 92 iis Upon completion and approval of the Fort Trumbull Municipal Development Plan by the governing body of the City of New London and initiation of the project, NLDC staff and/or its designees will meet with each resident owner and tenant scheduled to be displaced to conduct a survey. The purpose of the survey will be to document the characteristics of each household or business, (i.e., services or products sold, space occu- pied) and ultimately determine specifications for a new residence or business site. Based upon this in- formation, alternative dwelling units and commercial sites will be identified for these households, busi- nesses, and non-profit agencies. 2.4 330 At this time, the real estate market, both its residen- tial and commercial segments, appears to have a va- cancy rate and turnover rate that will satisfy the requirements of potential displacees from the project area. Project relocation staff and/or its designees will follow the Relocation Assistance Advisory Plan to be adopted by NLDC and the City of New London to carry out relocation responsibilities. 2.3.6 Anticiputed Relocation Expenses The total expenses to relocate residential households, businesses, and non-profit agencies from the project area cannot be estimated at this time. Upon comple- tion of the-Municipal Development Plan, a determina- tion of the extent of acquisition, if any, will be made and a budget will be established. The budget will in- clude expenditures for eligible moving payments, fixed payments, replacement housing payments, mov- ing personal property and, when necessary, payments for direct losses of personal property. A contingency account will also be budgeted. Funding for the relocation program is to coincide with the phasing of the acquisition of properties. Additional information regarding relocation expenses is presented in Section 5.0 of this document. Community Facilities and Services The following information regarding education, health care, public safety, emergency services, and parks and recreation has been taken in part from the City of New London Plan of Development. Personal telephone interviews have been conducted to update 331 and verify this information, which will serve as the basis for evaluation of potential impacts as presented in Section 4.0 of this document. 2.4.1 Education The City of New London provides a full range of edu- cational services to its residents. The education sys- tem is managed by a seven-member group of elected officials known as the Board of Education. Five ele- mentary schools located throughout the city provide educational services for children in grades K-6. These elementary schools include the Winthrop, Jennings, Edgerton, Harbor, and Nathan Hale Schools. Also in- cluded in the school system is the Little Red School- house, providing special needs programs. Middle school services are provided at the Bennie Dover Jackson Middle School for grades 6-8. The New Lon- don High School provides education for grades 9-12. A number of private schools also exist in the City of New London. Five private schools provide elementary education, including Saint Mary’s School, Saint Jo- seph’s School, Solomon Schecter Academy, the Word Center Christian Academy, the Regional Multi- Cultural Magnet School, and the Inter-district School for Arts and Communication (ISAAC). The Williams Memorial Institute provides private education at the junior and senior high school levels. Both daytime and evening adult education programs are provided to the residents of New London. The city leases a building in the Shaw’s Cove Business Park which houses the Adult Education Center. Also lo- cated within the city are several institutions of higher learning, including the Sawyer School, Ridley Lowell Business and Technical Institute, Mitchell College, 332 Connecticut College, and the United States Coast Guard Academy. The current school enrollment levels are expected to remain relatively stable. As a result, it is not antici- pated that any schools will be closed or new schools constructed. At the present time, most of the schools operate at enrollment levels below the rated capacity of the buildings. Table 2.4-1 lists the grades, current enrollment as of 1998, maximum capacity of each school, and the streets in the Fort Trumbull area of New London in each school district. The majority of the MDP area is allocated to the Harbor School for elementary educa- tion. All middle school and high school students in this area would go to Bennie Dover Jackson Middle School and New London High School, respectively. 333 TABLE 2.4-1 Current Enrollment and Maximum Capacities of New London Public Schools Name Grade /Current imum|Fort Trumbull Enroll- |Capacity |Area Streets ment Assigned to School Little Red ungraded Not |None Schoolhouse Available! (special needs program) Edgerton elementary; 327 408 (None School Harbor School \elementary 377 476 |Chelsea Street East Street [Goshen Street Maple Avenue Pequot Aven Jennings elementary; 382 377 |None School Nathan Hale (elementary, 259 408 /jNone School Winthrop elementary 271 383 {Hamilton School Howard Street Bennie Dover | middle 683 728 «All Jackson school Middle School New London high 726 800 |All High School school Source: City of New London. Board of Education, 1998. 334 2.4.2 Health Care The major contributor to the region’s health care fa- cilities is the Lawrence and Memorial Hospital lo- cated on Montauk Avenue in New London. This facility maintains 350 beds and serves approximately 14,000 hospitalized inpatients and over 100,000 out- patients per year. The hospital is currently under an expansion and modernization project which will bring the facility up to par with some of the other leading hospitals in the state. When the project is complete, the new services will include a new advanced emer- gency room, a maternity service wing, new operating suites, and a community service center. The expan- sion project has been divided into three separate phases. Currently, Phase 2 is near completion. The City of New London is also home to approxi- mately 70 offices of local physicians, dentists, and other health care professionals. The Community Health Center relocated its facility to the Shaw’s Cove Business Park in the fall of 1994. The City of New London Health Department is also active in protecting the health of the public. The Health Department currently oversees a number of programs, including lead abatement, code enforce- ment, immunization, radon, Aids, teen pregnancy pro- tection, and school dental and health. 2.4.3 Public Safely and Emergency Services The City of New London provides a variety of police, fire and emergency services in an effort to reduce the loss of life and property and protect the public’s safety. 335 Police Services The New London Police Department headquarters (staffed 24 hours per day) is located on Governor Win- throp Boulevard. In addition to the headquarters, there are two auxiliary police stations (staffed a por- tion of the day) located on Bank Street and Truman Street. A total of 90 sworn officers and 20 civilian per- sonnel comprise the New London Police Department. The Police Department also operates 14 marked pa- trol cars and 10 unmarked cars as well as a marine unit that includes a boat and three officers. (Personal communication, Captain Edwards, July 1998) Fire and Emergency Services The New London Fire Department headquarters is lo- cated on Bank Street. Two additional fire stations are located on Broad Street and Lower Boulevard. In all, the Fire Department employs 76 people, including the fire chief, deputy fire chief, fire marshal, a fire inspec- tor, and administrative staff. There are no volunteer firefighters. The Fire Department headquarters lo- cated on Bank Street also houses one ladder and one tower engine. The Fire Department possesses two ad- ditional fire engines held in reserve. (Personal com- munication, Fire Department administrative staff, July 1998) In addition to its firefighting relaced responsibilities, the New London Fire Department serves as the lead resource necessary to abate hazardous materials inci- dents, rescue operations, radiological incidents, and other emergency incidents. The City of New London operates an Ambulance Divi- sion as part of the Fire Department. The Ambulance Division operates out of the Fire Department head- quarters located on Bank Street as well as at the North Station. Two ambulances are operated full 336 time, with one additional ambulance in reserve. Each ambulance is operated by a two-person crew, with a total of four employees working per shift providing emergency medical services to the community. (Per- sonal communication, Fire Department administra- tive staff, July 1998) From the perspective of fire hazard rating of construc- tion materials, 41% (427,200 square feet) of the build- ing stock in the study area is wood framed construction (Class D), and another 18% (185,000 square feet) is wood and masonry framed construction (Class C). There are 423,200 square feet (41%) of masonry/steel construction (Class B or A), reflective of more modern construction techniques. This group includes Build- ings 2, 80 and 96 at NUWC, as well as the 194 How- ard Street office building. 2.4.4 Parks and Recreation City-Wide Park and Recreation Facilities According to information in the 1997 New London Plan of Development, the city owns and operates one regional park, three citywide parks, three beaches, one senior center/auditorium, two historic sites, 11 neighborhood playgrounds, seven neighbor- hood parks, one pier, one marina, and two open space parks. This park system totals 292 acres at 28 sites and ranges in size from 0.35 acres to 95 acres. In addition to these public facilities, there are several private and quasi-public facilities located within the city that are available to community residents. These include the Garde Arts Center, Mitchell Woods Park, the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, Connecticut College, the Connecticut College Arboretum, Mitchell College, the BP Learned House, six marinas, a yacht club, a state boat launch, and a number of privately owned 337 beaches. These facilities add over 220 acres of recrea- tional area to the city. The combination of public and private land held for open space totals 14% of the land area of the city. Planning for the city park system is currently based upon the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Action Program. The city is in the process of revising this plan which inventoried and assessed the provision of the parks and recreation services to its residents and established goals and recommendations for future needs. Greens Harbor Beach and Park is located in the pro- ject vicinity. This is a 3.5-acre public recreational fa- cility operated by the City of New London. Caulkins Park is a 12.9-acre park located across the railroad tracks from Greens Harbor Park. Under present day conditions, there are no recreational facilities within the confines of the Fort Trumbull MDP area. Planned Facilities by the State Department of Envi- ronmental Protection The Connecticut Department of Environmental Pro- tection is planning to take over a portion of the NUWC site for use as a historic state park. Tentative activities include removing numerous incompatible buildings, opening the 19th century fort and block- house for visitors, and providing waterfront access. The specific planned components of the Fort Trumbull State Park are described in greater detail in Section 3.0 of this document. The following discussion is based on the Department of Environmental Protection's application to the Fed- eral Lands to Parks Program administered by the United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Northeast Region. 338 Planning is underway by the Department of Envi- ronmental Protection with the City of New London and the Town of Groton in the development of the Thames Maritime Heritage Park in New London. New London is one of six “Tier One” State Heritage Parks projects intended to combine historic preserva- tion, promote tourism and economic regeneration and increase the region’s recreational opportunity. Each park is based upon a local theme. The Thames Mari- time Heritage Park’s theme will be local maritime history with a focus on the Thames River Estuary. Because this significant military history is shared by both sides of the river, the Thames Maritime Heritage Park will be unique in Connecticut in being a multi- municipality facility. The goal of the heritage park is to link the area's many marine-related attractions, unitizing a visitor center/museum as the focal point. Tour boat rides around the harbor and docking at designated loca- tions will allow visitors opportunities to tour key his- toric attractions along the Thames River. Some of these attractions will include: Fort Griswold State Park, National Submarine Memorial, New London Ledge Lighthouse, Project Oceanology, U.S.S. Nauti- lus Memorial, U.S. Coast Guard Academy, Customs House, Shaw Mansion, and Fort Trumbull State Park. The addition of Fort Trumbull State Park is seen as a key to the rebirth of the waterfront in New London and as the cornerstone of the Thames Maritime Heri- tage Park. Aesthetic/Visual Resources The following discussion provides background on the aesthetic and visual condition of the project area. 339 2.5.1 Regional Landscape The southeastern portion of Connecticut falls into two geological areas, the eastern uplands and the coastal slope. Bedrock, composed of mainly metamorphic rocks like schist and gneiss, make up the eastern up- lands. Hills rise out of the eastern side of the Central Valley, running mostly north and south, reaching 1,000 feet at the northernmost reach, while the southernmost part reaches only 500 to 700 feet in height, creating a slope of 10 to 20 feet per mile. At the coast, the slope steepens to 50 feet per mile. The eastern uplands are composed of the Bolton Range, Mohegan Range, and the Windham Hills. This hilly area, aptly named the uplands, is covered with rich soil that is generally quite good for farming unlike much of New England. Yet another aspect of the eastern uplands is the minerals and metals found beneath the rich soil. The coastal area of southeastern Connecticut is very unique. Unlike the smooth shores of Rhode Island and the southern side of Long Island, Connecticut's shore is rocky and irregular. Made up of salt marshes, freshwater meadows, and beaches, its many notches are well suited for harbors and are largely responsible for the important role maritime industries have played in the past. New London Harbor is an industrial port serving southeastern Connecticut. The dry docks and other shipbuilding facilities at Electric Boat and the manu- facturing buildings at Pfizer are located on the east side of the harbor in Groton. On the west, the NUWC facility, State Pier, Cross Sound Ferry, and the rail- road are predominant waterfront features. Urban downtown New London completes the landscape of the outer harbor. 340 Upstream along the Thames River, north of Interstate 95 and the Gold Star Memorial Bridge, the industrial waterfront continues, but to a lesser extent. The Navy submarine base occupies the east bank of the Thames River, while the U.S. Coast Guard Academy overlooks the river on the west. Downstream of the project area, to the south, the roadway along Pequot Avenue provides continuous shoreline views. Moving further south, a transition to residential neighborhoods occurs. Ocean Beach is lo- cated further south. 2.5.2 MDP Area Landscape The entire project area has been used extensively by European settlers since the mid 17th century. Little natural landscape remains. The most area is the bedrock hill upon which Fort Trumbull was built. It commands a fine view of the Thames River and central New London. Even here, the land- scape has been cut, filled, and regraded to meet changing needs. The lower lying areas north, west, and south of the hill have also seen extensive disturbance, typical of older urban areas. The landscape is dominated by wood frame buildings, several industrial buildings, a sewage treatment plant, and roads. Vegetation is lim- ited to scattered hardwood trees in yards, lawns, and hedges associated with the residential landscape. The rock outcrops and the remnant tidal wetlands associ- ated with Bentley Creek are the only remains of the natural landscape features. The visual quality of the landscape within the project area is best described as being deteriorated. The streets and sidewalks show a lack of maintenance. 2.6 341 Individual structures in the vicinity of NUWC exhibit a similar lack of care, for the most part. The street- scape character, which is likely to have existed in the 18th and 19th centuries, is no longer apparent. Public Utilities and Services Existing utilities are described below. This inventory provides a baseline against which to measure impacts of alternatives, as presented in Section 4.0 of this document. 2.6.1 Water Source of Supply The City of New London has operated its own water supply system since 1873 in accordance with an ena- bling Act of the General Assembly dated June 5, 1871. On March 28, 1997, the operation of the water supply system was transferred to the Professional Service Group, taking charge of all administrative power ex- cept for capital projects. Professional Service Group provides public water service within city boundaries, as well as to portions of the Town of Waterford and the Town of Montville. New London utilizes surface water sources for its supply system. Table 2.6-1 presents storage, water surface area, and watershed data for the active water supplies. These consist of four active reservoirs: Lake Konomoc, Fairy Lake, Barnes Reservoir, and Bogue Brook Reservoir. Lake Konomoc, the principal storage reservoir of the supply system, is located along Lakes Pond Brook, a tributary to the Niantic River, in Montville and Waterford. Fairy Lake, located in Sa- lem, is located along Latimer Brook, a tributary to the Niantic River, and is upstream of Barnes Reservoir 342 which is located in Montville, also along Latimer Brook. Bogue Brook Reservoir is located in Montville as well, along Bogue Br »ok. TABLE 2.6-1 Active Water Supplies s ‘Storage Water Surface Watershed (MG) (acres) (sq. mi.) Lake Konomac 1,216 286.0 1.40 Barnes Reservoir 170 42.2 2.00 Brook Reservoir| 212 110.0 1.65 Fairy Lake 235 121.2 0.89 Beckwith Pond 2 3.7 2.24 Great Swamp a Pa 068 Totals 1,835 563.1 8.86 , Source: Comprehensive Water Supply Plan. City of New London, Water and Water Pollution Control Authority, rev. 1998. Note: MG is million gallons Additional supply sources include the Beckwith Pond Reservoir, in Montville at the confluence of Latimer and Bogue Brooks, and the Great Swamp Diversion, northeast of Lake Konomac. An emergency source, Brandagee Lake, owned by the Water and Water Pol- lution Contro!] Authority (WWPCA), is located at the northern border of New London. An additional emer- gency source, although restricted and not used, .. the smal] pond known as Bond Reservoir, located imme- diately north of Fairy Lake. Future projections provided in the city’s Water Supply Plan forecast the population of the New London service area to be relatively stable. However, the adjacent Town of Waterford service population and consumption is growing steadily and is projected to continue to in- crease. The State Department of Public Heath (DPH) has indicated that system improvements are needed to 343 increase New London’s available water supply in the future. Although the safe yield of the water system meets the current average demands, a water deficit is projected for the 50-year planning period. This supply deficit is projected for systems during a severe drought when the margin of safety falls below 1.0. The margin of safety for a system is defined as the unitless ratio of the water available in the system (safe yield) to the average daily demand. A margin of safety of at least 15% (1.15) relative to a 99% safe yield is recommended by the Department of Public Utility Control (DPUC). Table 2.6-2 presents safe yield, average daily demand, ~ and margin of safety data for existing conditions and the 5-, 20-, and 50-year planning periods. New Lon- don’s water supply is projected to fall below the de- sired margin of safety by the year 2012 and it is projected that the existing safe yield will be exceeded by the year 2030. Even using more conservative popu- lation projections, it is anticipated that the margin of safety will be inadequate by the year 2040. TABLE 2.6-2 Margin of Safety for Current and Projected Consumption Based on Existing Supply Sources Time Safe Yield) Average Daily of Frame (MGD) |Demand (MGD) FY 1993-1997 7.0 5.54 1.26 5-year (2002) 7.0 5.69 1.23 20-year (2010) 7.0 6.01 1.16 50-year (2040) 7.0 7.52 0.93 Source: Comprehensive Water Supply Plan. City of New London, Water and Water Pollution Control Authority, rev. 1998. To address the forecasted deficiencies, the city has submitted an application for a water diversion permit 344 to the Department of Environmental Protection to de- velop the Hunts Brook diversion to increase water supply safe yield. The replacement of the Great Swamp pump station has also been identified as a possible action to increase the available yield to the water supply system. Any future development with high water demands would need to be carefully coor- dinated with the city to ensure that adequate water supply is available to meet such needs. Table 2.6-3 presents options for increasing the safe yield through various scenarios. It should be noted that a permitted diversion rate does not equate to safe yield and, in fact, is often considerably greater 345 Existing Reservoir System with 7.4 MGD Diversion at Beckwith Pond and 1.2 MGD Diversion at Great Swamp 10.0 MGD Diversion at Hunts Brook 9.5 Existing Reservoir System with 7.4 MGD Diversion at Beckwith Pond and 1.2 MGD Diversion at Great Swamp 8.0 MGD Diversion at Hunts Brook and 5.0 MGD Diversion at Miller Pond 11.0 Existing Reservoir System with 7.4 MGD Diversion at Beckwith Pond than safe yield. TABLE 2.6-3 Various Scenarios for Increasing Safe Yield Description Safe Yield (MGD) and 1.2 MGD Diversion at Great Swamp 8.0 MGD Diversion at Hunts Brook and 10.0 MGD Diversion at Miller Pond 11.0 Existing Reservoir System with 7.4 MGD Diversion at Beckwith Pond and 0.25 MGD Diversion at Great Swamp 7.0 Existing Reservoir System with 7.4 MGD Diversion at Beckwith Pond and 1.2 MGD Diversion at Great Swamp 7.2 Existing Reservoir System with 7.4 MGD Diversion at Beckwith Pond and 1.2 MGD Diversion at Great Swamp 6.0 MGD Diversion at Hunts Brook 9.3 Existing Reservoir System with 7.4 MGD Diversion at Beckwith Pond and 1.2 MGD Diversion at Great ry 8.0 MGD Diversion at Hunts Brook 9.4 Source: Comprehensive Water Supply Plan. City of New London, Water and Water Pollution Control Authority, rev. 1998. Implementation of various combinations of these op- tions would increase safe yield to acceptable levels, with an adequate margin of safety. A regional water supply planning program is currently underway by the State of Connecticut Department of Public Health which will further evaluate supply deficits and poten- tial future supply sources in the southeastern Con- necticut region. Distribution System The New London Plan of Development and the city’s Water Supply Plan indicate that the distribution system storage capacity is adequate for the existing and future demands. The Plan of Development further indicates that the Waterford distribution piping is relatively new 346 and in good condition. The New London distribution system, particularly in the southern half of the city, was constructed in the early 1900's and is in need of sub- stantial repairs. The system has numerous areas of fire flow deficiencies, reduced pipe capacities, undersized mains and low pressure areas. Fire flow deficiencies are gradually being addressed through the city’s main replacement program. Minor repairs and maintenance have been performed on the Lake Konomac Dam, Barnes Reservoir Dam, and Bra- negee Lake Dam in response to orders issued by the Department of Environmental Protection. Plans also include installation of the additional instrumentation necessary to assure compliance with the 1997 Safe Drinking Water Act Additionally, a comprehensive metering program, intended to assist in the recovery of lost revenues, is underway to replace all customer meters within eight years. Remaining deficiencies are addressed in the short-term and long-term capital improvement plans. Two pro- grams are outlined in the capital plan: one for p [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0031%3A09. Public record. Not legal advice.