Manresa Island and Construction of The Walk Bridge: A Brief History
In June of 2020, ConnDOT announced that they had decided not to build the Walk Bridge spans on Water Street in Norwalk, CT as originally planned and instead intended to build them on part of the site of the now defunct Manresa power plant.
For those unfamiliar with the site, it is a stunningly beautiful piece of land that was horribly polluted over decades by its use as a coal-fired and then gas-powered power plant. The site is still owned by NRG, the successor company to the polluting power company that operated the plant. The City of Norwalk and The Manresa Association raised money several years ago to conduct a comprehensive analysis of how the site can be reused. You can find that study at https://tomorrow.norwalkct.org/plan/manresa-island/ and can be viewed: here.
After an unsatisfying public presentation on their plan (from the perspective of many of Manresa’s neighbors), Bob Duff organized a call with ConnDOT, many neighbors of Manresa, Norwalk’s Mayor Rilling, and a number of other local electeds. Out of that meeting, ConnDOT agreed to conduct a number of studies to address some of the holes in the plan. Those studies were finally issued in November of 2020 . They can all be found at http://meetings.walkbridgect.com/.
Many of Manresa Island’s neighbors found those studies unsatisfactory, both in terms of how they were conducted and what they found. Below is a letter to CONNDOT summarizing THE MANRESA NEIGHBORHOOD COALITON’S concerns:
November 11, 2020
The residential neighborhoods surrounding Manresa Island write to express our disappointment with the supplemental studies conducted by the Connecticut Department of Transportation (DOT) following the July 2020 meeting between the Walk Bridge team and neighborhood representatives. We submitted a long series of questions about the impact of the project on the site and the surrounding neighborhoods, and we were heartened that DOT decided to further investigate some of the questions we raised. The long-awaited reports issued last week, however, only heightened our concerns.
DOT has demonstrated only that this project is not appropriately located in the heart of residential neighborhoods. DOT has failed to answer the obvious question raised by its own studies: why not construct and demolish the bridge spans at an existing industrial site along the Connecticut coast where there is no impact on the quality of life of any Connecticut resident? This is an industrial project, and all possible industrial alternatives should be explored before focusing on any residential area.
Noise
The noise study predicts that the noises of the various tools used at the site would be in the range of 50-64 dBA, a roughly 10 dBA increase from current background levels. Effectively, the background noise level in neighborhoods surrounding Manresa would double. All day. Six days a week. For up to six years.
Even worse, the noise study significantly underestimates the noise levels the neighborhoods would experience. The study treats the salt marsh between Manresa Island and Village Creek as dry land. For at least the hours surrounding high tide, however, those marshes are almost entirely inundated, and the sound is effectively traveling over water. Using the study’s own methodology, the noise level of the Sand Blaster Air Compressor at the MAN-3 location at high tide would be around 75 dBA. That would be like living with a vacuum cleaner running continuously—for six years.
The report makes no mention of East Norwalk. Based on the study’s methodology, however, Calf Pasture Beach is also likely to be bombarded with more than 70 dBA six days a week for the duration of the project. That level of noise would significantly diminish one of the great joys of summer for thousands of Norwalk families for years.
Traffic
The traffic study does not address at all the traffic on Woodward Avenue south of Meadow Street—the stretch of road that was one of the major concerns we raised in July. That stretch of road is narrow, with reduced bike lanes, reduced sidewalks, several well-used bus stops, and the only large public park in the area, drawing substantial pedestrian traffic, especially children.
The Trip Generation analysis does not appear to include the vehicular traffic for the loads of materials from the demolition of the existing bridge that we were informed in July would be barged into the Manresa site and then trucked up Woodward Ave to Lajoie's Auto & Scrap Recycling on Meadow Street. Assuming the material being removed is roughly comparable in size to the volume of material brought in for the new bridge, the study would seem to underestimate the number of truck trips on Woodward Avenue by half.
The study also treats the fact that Meadow Street, Woodward Avenue and other roads along the route to Manresa already suffer from heavy truck traffic as a reason not to worry about the impact of additional trips—rather than questioning whether it is safe or equitable to add additional pollution and accident risk to already heavily impacted neighborhoods.
Environmental
This restatement of DOT’s position appears to involve no additional analysis and as such does not significantly address many of the concerns raised by the neighborhoods in July. What, for instance, happens to the lead paint dust and other contaminants caught by the six-inch gravel layer if Manresa is entirely covered with flood waters as it was during Hurricane Sandy? Or if the site is pummeled by hurricane force winds? Does that lead dust end up in our water and backyards?
Alternate Sites
This analysis was simply baffling in its omissions. Why were no shipyards and/or other industrial sites on the Connecticut coastline considered? The report points to the need to dock barges bringing spans constructed elsewhere in appropriate harbors in Bridgeport or New Haven. But it does not answer the question of why the spans could not be constructed on barges parked there in the first instance. The report’s objections to building the spans in more distant locations—such as communication delays, hurricanes and other risks from lack of close coordination—would appear not to apply to distances of 20 or 30 miles. And both Bridgeport and New Haven have existing waterfront industrial sites cut off from residential neighborhoods where it seems this construction and demolition could be safely performed away from children and homes more generally.
Community Effects
Beyond the questions the neighborhoods have posed to DOT, we have significant questions for our local leaders. The City and many members of the community have invested $150,000 and significant time in developing a plan for redeveloping the Manresa site. This proposal appears to
put that vision off for at least six years. Why isn’t the City—and why aren’t you as our elected representatives—requesting an appropriate alternative?
The replacement of the Walk Bridge is obviously of significant importance to the federal government, millions of people along the Amtrak corridor, and the state of Connecticut. It is unacceptable for our residential neighborhoods to bear the deeply disproportionate burden of this project.
We remain opposed to any attempts to use the Manresa site for the building or demolition of the Walk Bridge. We ask you as our elected representatives to continue to push DOT to find a better solution. DOT’s reports are not a genuine attempt to address the concerns of the surrounding communities. They significantly underestimate the effects on and risks to our residents, particularly our children. We know that Connecticut can do better—and we expect you, as our representatives, to fight for us.
Sincerely,
Residents of Village Creek, Harbor Shores, Harbor View, and Wilson Point
In a nutshell, the peak noise from this project will be a loud as sitting next to a vacuum cleaner when sitting on Calf Pasture Beach or in many neighboring homes – for at least 4 years – and will require periods of major truck traffic through some neighborhoods (Longshore Avenue, Woodward Avenue , South Main Street, Meadow Street) that are already most overburdened by air pollution. THE ConnDOT SOUND STUDY CAN BE FOUND HERE.
The Commissioner of ConnDOT replied on January 8, 2021 With the Following:
The In Depth Response can be read HERE.
ConnDOT then applied to CT DEEP for some of the necessary permits. You can find the application at https://www.walkbridgect.com/project_documents/environmental_permits.aspx.
VERY IMPORTANT:
THE MANRESA NEIGHBORHOOD COALITON did, however, use the FOIL Act (Freedom of Information Law), and learned that ConnDOT’s own consulting firm, Cianbro-Middlesex Joint Venture (CMJV), had recommended using an alternate site to Manresa. The FOIL’d files are very large, but can be found at this LINK. The key paragraphs we found that directly contradict the ConnDOT’s claims about the burden of building the spans in another location are pasted below:
“CMJV previously promoted Manresa Island as a positive alternative compared to MNO on the basis that there was no need to construct a bulkhead such as the one being proposed for MNO and the yard could be used for multiple marine operations (potentially). Now that there has been further development with the planning and procurement of the Manresa space and subsequent communication with the surrounding communities, it appears that Manresa may be a restricted place to work, especially when compared to some of the offsite facilities that are a part of this study. Both ‘leased’ offsite assembly locations, Morgan’s Wharf & Port of Coeymans, are established construction facilities where work is taking place everyday with little to no restriction to be considered for our project.
Ultimately, CMJV believes that assembling the lift span offsite is a perfectly viable and optimal choice considering the difficulties that have become apparent with trying to perform the assembly locally. There are added costs for the roll-on of the structure offsite and the float-in but potential savings with site work, rental and CMJV’s method of assembly. Overall, though, the consideration of offsite assembly has led us to realize there may be even more significant savings in having a reputable steel fabricator perform the assembly themselves, such as G&G’s proposal and its potential cost savings. At this time, only G&G has been approached regarding this possibility, but it is feasible that there are more steel fabricators willing to do something similar.”
In the meantime, NRG, who still owns the site, has supposedly been actively looking for buyers for it. See https://www.norwalkstationreuse.com/.
Dec. 2nd, 2021:
The CT Department of Transportation quietly announced that they were intending to Waive Public Hearing on the use of Manresa Island for the fabrication of the Walk Bridge. The Manresa Neighborhood Coalition immediately took action and gained the signatures necessary in the time frame necessary to be clear that a public hearing on the use of Manresa as staging site for construction of Walk Bridge was had . The entire announcement can be found by clicking here.
January 5th, 2022
On January 5th, in a status conference set to establish the need for a public hearing on the use of Manresa Island, The Norwalk Harbor Management Commission and The Norwalk Shellfish Commission submitted the following letter petitioning the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection for a public hearing on the use of Manresa as a staging site. Its reasons are itemized carefully in the letter., but they have concerns about the use of Manresa as well. The CT DEEP is the governing body that will ultimately deny or approve the site for use in the construction of the Walk Bridge. The Norwalk Harbor Management Commission and The Norwalk Shellfish Commissions letter can be downloaded by clicking here, but hightlights are below.
Outline of Norwalk’s Harbor Management Concerns
1. Water Quality: The Harbor Management Plan contains a number of provisions for protecting and improving water quality. To advance the Plan’s water quality goals and policies, the NHMC and NSC work collaboratively on a number of initiatives, including scientific studies, well known to DEEP and ConnDOT, and support and assist the Mayor’s advisory Water Quality Committee. Throughout the planning process, the NHMC and NSC have emphasized that protecting water quality during the Project is a harbor management, including shellfish management, priority. In this regard, the NHMC and NSC have been analyzing ConnDOT’s baseline water quality data and developing recommendations for water quality monitoring protocols, appropriate thresholds of water quality values to be maintained throughout the Project, and Best Management Practices (BMPs) to be em- ployed during the Project, not unlike the protocols, thresholds, and BMPs required by DEEP in other major projects affecting coastal waterways. The NHMC and NSC are concerned that the draft License Terms and Conditions include no requirements for monitoring water quality conditions during Project construction and no thresholds of water quality values to be maintained, including acceptable turbidity values.
2. Vessel Relocation: Throughout the Project planning process, the NHMC, Harbor Master, and Marine Division of the Norwalk Police Department have given considerable attention to ConnDOT’s plans affecting operation of the Norwalk Seaport Association ferry and Maritime Aquarium research vessel. We have made clear our finding that ConnDOT’s proposed vessel relocation plan, insofar as it would provide for operation of these two passenger-carrying vessels in the area between the Walk and Stroffolino bridges during the Project, presents an unacceptable risk to public safety. Accordingly, the Harbor Master previously informed DEEP and ConnDOT that he cannot support and will not approve of continued passenger-carrying operations of the two vessels in the area between the bridges during the Project. His decision was made pursuant to his statutory responsibility to maintain safe and efficient operation of the harbor and his authority under Sec. 15-8 of the General Statutes to station all vessels and be the sole judge [emphasis added] as to whether a vessel is stationed so as not to adversely affect commerce or navigation or public access. His decision and the NHMC’s findings concerning ConnDOT’s vessel relocation plans are based on considerations of public safety and not on operators’ economic and logistical considerations.
3. Water Street Bulkhead: The NHMC and NSC remain concerned about Project plans to construct a new bulkhead at properties identified as 68 and 90 Water Street within ConnDOT’s proposed marine staging yard. Previously, the NHMC was informed by a ConnDOT representative that the proposed bulkhead is not needed for Project construction and is planned to increase the value of the affected properties for future development. The NSC was informed by another ConnDOT representative that plans for the bulkhead were included in the revised License application in case the bulkhead should be needed for Project construction. As described in the initial License application, the bulkhead was planned for installation at the conclusion of the Project (Stage 22), thereby indicating that the bulk-head is not needed for Project construction. Also of interest when considering this matter is that the existing bulkhead at 68 Water Street is the subject of a long-standing violation of environmental law; the 68 Water Street property owner also has submitted a DEEP License application for bulkhead construction at this property; and a proposal for a bulkhead along the 90 Water Street shoreline was previously deemed not approvable by the Department of Environmental Protection (prior to DEEP) due to the presence of tidal wetland vegetation.
4. Water-Dependent Uses: The NHMC and NSC remain concerned about the Project’s impact on: 1) the operation of recreational boating and commercial port facilities during Project construction; and 2) opportunities for future water-dependent development on properties acquired or otherwise utilized by ConnDOT for construction purposes and available for redevelopment following completion of the Project. Included are properties in the Liberty Square and Water Street Marine Commercial District that previously supported water-dependent uses and remain suitable for such uses. The Connecticut Coastal Management Act and the Harbor Management Plan give highest priority and preference to water-dependent uses in shorefront areas. The NHMC and NSC are concerned that DEEP’s draft License Terms and Conditions intended to ensure future water-dependent redevelopment of properties no longer required by ConnDOT are not sufficient for their intended purpose. We are concerned that the draft Terms and Conditions would allow these properties to be redeveloped for principal site uses that are not water-dependent (multi-family residential development, for example) but which may be considered water-dependent through the provision of opportunities for pedestrian public access to the harbor. In addition, during the Project planning process, ConnDOT argued that the new movable bridge, as planned, would facilitate additional marine commercial use and development in the Upper Norwalk Harbor, up-river from the bridge. In 2022, however, it is our understanding that economic conditions are such that there is no reasonable expectation of additional waterborne commerce in the upper harbor and, in fact, the city’s land-use vision for the Upper Harbor waterfront includes residential development with public access amenities.
5. Coordination with the Harbor Master and Emergency Services: Noted above with respect to the Project’s vessel relocation plans, maintaining public safety, including navigation safety, is a harbor management priority emphasized throughout the Project planning process by the NHMC, NSC, and Harbor Master. Appointed by the Governor, the Harbor Master is the state official responsible for safe and efficient operation of the harbor and acts in coordination with the Norwalk Police and Fire departments to fulfill this responsibility. ConnDOT recognizes that the Project area, and particularly the area between the Walk and Stroffolino bridges, often will be highly congested during the Project. Construction barges, work support vessels, as well as other commercial and recreational vessels, including rowing craft, may be expected to transit the area utilizing the federal navigation channel. The NHMC, NSC, and Harbor Master are concerned that the draft License Terms and Conditions include no requirements addressing the need to ensure effective communication between the ConnDOT Project Team, Harbor Master, and Norwalk Police and Fire Departments for the duration of the Project or for development of an effective vessel control system and emergency management procedures in coordination with the U.S. Coast Guard.
6. Barge Mooring: Among the authorized activities in the draft DEEP License are “mooring locations” for construction barges and work support boats in Norwalk Harbor. The draft License, however, does not reference the authority of the Harbor Master to station all vessels in Norwalk Harbor and the need for ConnDOT to secure mooring permits from the Harbor Master. Pursuant to Sec. 22a-113r of the General Statutes, no mooring shall be placed in the Norwalk Harbor Management Area without a permit from the Harbor Master or Deputy Harbor Master. When considering applications for mooring permits, the Harbor Master is guided by the NHMC’s duly established “Rules and Regulations for Mooring and Anchoring Vessels in Norwalk Harbor.”
7. Manresa Island: The NHMC and NSC have focused much attention on plans and proposals concerning the use and condition of Manresa Island, both prior to and following deactivation of the Norwalk Harbor Power Station, including plans and proposals for environmental remediation and future re-development of this prominent waterfront site. Some questions previously submitted by the NHMC and NSC concerning ConnDOT’s proposed use of Manresa Island as a Project staging and storage yard, including questions regarding the potential impacts of that proposed use on surrounding areas and environmental remediation requirements, have not been addressed. In addition, we are not aware of any comments and recommendations provided to date by the Norwalk Planning Commission and Conservation Commission concerning ConnDOT’s proposed use of Manresa Island. The NHMC has informed DEEP and ConnDOT of the Harbor Management Plan provisions that call for waterfront development proposals to be carefully planned, reviewed, and regulated to avoid adverse impacts on the quality of life in waterfront neighborhoods.
FEBRUARY 23, 2022 @ 3pm
CT DEEP hosted a public Zoom hearing that will contribute to decision whether Manresa is used as a staging site for the Walk Bridge was held on February 23rd. The MNC post regarding this public hearing read: “We hope that concerned citizens will write public letter to the CT Department of Environmental Protection Adjudicator, Kathleen Riser. In addition to writing Kathleen Riser , WE NEED YOU TO REGISTER TO ATTEND AND, IDEALLY, READY YOUR LETTER AT THE PUBLIC HEARING (see “TAKE ACTION NOW” page of this site for all detailed actions we recommend). Because there will be people voicing their concerns, comments that speak to the following topics are best visited given the purview of the adjudicator: negative impacts on water quality, the use of the harbor and harbor traffic, sound levels that the project would to bring to the entire area (East Norwalk, and Calf Pasture Beach not just Manresa’s immediate neighbors), the upset to wildlife ( some of which are working their way to the endangered species list). Use the information on this website to help you inform yourself. Obviously, unique letters attract more attention than a pre-formatted letter, but if time is short, one just need to click the orange link below and it will auto populate with your email client: add your name at top of form and sign name and address at bottom of letter. All Comments must be received by FEBRUARY 28. Click here to email: Kathleen.Reiser@ct.gov “
MARCH 29, 2022
The CT DOT and CT DEEP jointly filed for an 30 day extension on the decision as to whether Manresa Island will be used as construction site of the Walk Bridge. The extension moves date back to May 20 to submit post-hearing findings. The entire motion can be read by clicking HERE:
