Environmental Justice Policy Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments Executive Committee  Neil O’Leary, Mayor, Waterbury  Mark Lauretti, Mayor, Shelton  Ken Cockayne, Mayor, Bristol  Tom Dunn, Mayor, Wolcott  Leonard Assard, First Selectman, Bethlehem  Chris Bielik, First Selectman, Beacon Falls  N. Warren “Pete” Hess, Mayor, Naugatuck  Kurt Miller, First Selectman, Seymour  Ed Mone, First Selectman, Thomaston Sta  Rick Dunne, Executive Director  Mark C. Nielsen, Director of Planning  William Leverence, Finance Director  Trish Bauer, Oce & Financial Manager  Arthur Bogen, Brownelds Consultant  Aaron Budris, Senior Regional Planner  Max Tanguay-Colucci, Regional Planner  John DiCarlo, Municipal Shared Services Coordinator  Christian Meyer, Supervising Transportation Planner  Benjamin Muller, Transportation Planner*  Mark Pandol, Transit Capital Administrator  Glenda Prentiss, GIS Program Coordinator  Lauren Rizzo, Administrative Services Coordinator  Joanna Rogalski, Regional Planner / Emergency Management*  Karen Svetz, P.E., Regional Transportation Engineer * indicates principal authors Sources of Copies  Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments  Leavenworth Street, rd Floor Waterbury, CT   Phone: () -  Email: nvcog@nvcogct.org  Website: www.nvcogct.org Acknowledgments  All Photos by NVCOG Sta EN Translations available by request. ES Traducciones disponibles bajo petici?n. IT Traduzioni disponibili su richiesta. PL Tumaczenia dostpne na zam?wienie. PT Tradu??es dispon?veis mediante solicita – ??o. SQ P?rkthime n? dispozicion me k?rkes?. ZH |?}F?~???~ ??   Mission Statement The Naugatuck Valley Council of Governments (NVCOG), a nineteen () municipality region in central- western Connecticut, is committed to achieving the full, fair, and meaningful participation of minority and low-income populations in its transportation, land use, economic development, and environmental planning processes. To fulll this commitment, the NVCOG has incorporated environmental justice principles into its planning, programming, and decision-making processes. What is Environmental Justice? Environmental justice is the policy and practice which calls for an agency to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental eects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. It also calls for identifying strategies and techniques for meaningful engagement of populations meeting the needs for environmental justice. To further the NVCOG’s commitment to environmental justice practice, the subsequent guiding principles will be followed:  to avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental eects, including social and economic eects, on minority populations and low- income populations;  to ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially aected communities in the planning decision-making process; and  to prevent the denial of, reduction in, or signicant delay in the receipt of benets by minority and low-income populations.  Applicability of this Policy The environmental justice provisions described in this policy apply to every phase of NVCOG planning decision-making processes, regardless of funding source. This policy also applies to activities of entities using NVCOG funds or facilities. Additionally, this policy applies to all actions of the Central Naugatuck Valley MPO and NVCOG activities on behalf of the Greater Bridgeport?Valley MPO. When requirements from funding sources or partners dier from those in this policy, the NVCOG shall use the more stringent requirement. Implementation of this Policy Environmental justice analyses at the project and program levels are the primary means by which NVCOG implements this EJ policy. Standards and steps to guide EJ analysis are found on page  of this policy statement. 1 FHWA Environmental Justice FAQ ( http://www.fhwa.dot/gov/environmental/environmental_justice_faq/index.cfm ) Introduction  Council of Governments (COG) The NVCOG?s role as a Council of Governments (or Council) is dened in Connecticut General Statutes Chapter  ? -i through ? -u. The NVCOG?s decision-making body is its Council of the Chief Elected Ocials (CEOs) of each municipality, or member, in the planning region. Decision-making structures for the Council are dened in the organization bylaws. The Council oversees matters of regional planning and municipal services cooperation, including transportation priorities of neighboring MPO regions (see next section). As a Council of Governments, the NVCOG?s primary planning responsibility is the drafting of a regional planning document known as the Regional Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD). The Regional POCD makes recommendations for “land use, housing, principal highways and freeways, bridges, airports, parks, playgrounds, recreational areas, schools, public institutions, public utilities, agriculture and such other matters as will be benecial to the area.” (Connecticut General Statutes Chapter  ? -a.) and informs the State POCD. METROPOLITAN SOUTH CENTRAL NORTHEASTERN SOUTHEASTERN CAPITOL REGION New London Windsor Locks Ansonia Beacon Falls Derby West Haven Wethers- field Thomaston Plainville East Haven New Britain Old Saybrook Middle- field Newing- ton Deep River Cromwell Rocky Hill East Granby North Canaan East Hartford Bridge- water West- brook Naugatuck Sprague Bridge- port Prospect Wood- bridge Seymour New Haven West Hartford Middle- bury North Haven New Canaan Essex Darien Andover Bethlehem North Branford Marl- borough Ne w Fairfield South Windsor Brookfield East Windsor Scot- land Strat- ford Hartford Bolton Westport Clinton Columbia Plymouth Lisbon Franklin Chaplin Bloomfield Sherman Old Lyme Weston Trumbull East Hampton Norwalk Hampton Watertown Southington Killing- worth Milford East Lyme Eastford Willington Sterling Cheshire Middletown Voluntown Hamden Stamford Madison Chester Orange Vernon Manchester Bethel Branford Bethany Putnam Farmington Wolcott Bozrah Morri s Waterbury Meriden Durham Portland Windham New Hartford Barkhamsted Burlington Winchester Roxbury Harwinton Colebrook Brooklyn Canton Washington Monroe North Stonington Ridgefield Norwich Waterford Somers Warren Woodbury Simsbury Wallingford Canterbury Windsor Fairfield Stonington Redding Easton Southbury Ellington Torrington Hartland Preston Bristol Shelton Canaan Wilton Avon Griswold Coventry East Haddam Berlin Salem Glastonbury Groton Greenwi ch Thompson Colchester Plainfield Oxford Union Mansfield Enfield Ledyard Hebron Montville Ashford Pomfret Danbury Cornwall Tolland Haddam Granby New Milford Suffield Goshen Woodstock Lyme Guilford Lebanon Norfolk Newtown Killingly Litchfield Salisbury Stafford Sharon Kent NAUGATUCK VALLEY WESTERN NORTHWEST HILLS LOWER CONNECTICUT RIVER VALLEY I 010205 Miles Source: OPM, State of Connecticut, U.S. Census Bureau 2010 Map : Councils of Government in Connecticut NVCOG Members  Ansonia  Beacon Falls  Bethlehem  Bristol  Cheshire  Derby  Middlebury  Naugatuck  Oxford  Plymouth  Prospect  Seymour  Shelton  Southbury  Thomaston  Waterbury  Watertown  Wolcott  Woodbury  Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) As a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) host agency, the NVCOG functions as the Central Naugatuck Valley MPO and cooperates with the Greater Bridgeport and Valley MPO on regional transportation planning processes and capital improvement programs for the two aforementioned MPO regions. MPOs are authorized by federal regulations, organized by municipalities as regions and designated by the Governor. MPOs conduct transportation planning and endorse the transportation improvement program for its constituent communities. The NVCOG solely hosts the Central Naugatuck Valley MPO (CNVMPO), and as such all CNVMPO activities must conform to this environmental justice policy. The NVCOG shares hosting responsibility with MetroCOG, the RPO for Greater Bridgeport, for four NVCOG member municipalities in the Greater Bridgeport?Valley MPO (GBVMPO): Ansonia, Derby, Seymour, and Shelton. NVCOG activities that incorporate these four municipalities must still conform to this environmental justice policy, but MPO? related activities in these four municipalities must also conform to Greater Bridgeport?Valley MPO policies. METROPOLITAN SOUTH CENTRAL NORTHEASTERN SOUTHEASTERN CAPITOL REGION New London Windsor Locks Ansonia Beacon Falls Derby West Haven Wethers- field Thomaston Plainville East Haven New Britain Old Saybrook Middle- field Newing- ton Deep River Cromwell Rocky Hill East Granby North Canaan East Hartford Bridge- water West- brook Naugatuck Sprague Bridge- port Prospect Wood- bridge Seymour New Haven West Hartford Middle- bury North Haven New Canaan Essex Darien Andover Bethlehem North Branford Marl- borough Ne w Fairfield South Windsor Brookfield East Windsor Scot- land Strat- ford Hartford Bolton Westport Clinton Columbia Plymouth Lisbon Franklin Chaplin Bloomfield Sherman Old Lyme Weston Trumbull East Hampton Norwalk Hampton Watertown Southington Killing- worth Milford East Lyme Eastford Willington Sterling Cheshire Middletown Voluntown Hamden Stamford Madison Chester Orange Vernon Manchester Bethel Branford Bethany Putnam Farmington Wolcott Bozrah Morri s Waterbury Meriden Durham Portland Windham New Hartford Barkhamsted Burlington Winchester Roxbury Harwinton Colebrook Brooklyn Canton Washington Monroe North Stonington Ridgefield Norwich Waterford Somers Warren Woodbury Simsbury Wallingford Canterbury Windsor Fairfield Stonington Redding Easton Southbury Ellington Torrington Hartland Preston Bristol Shelton Canaan Wilton Avon Griswold Coventry East Haddam Berlin Salem Glastonbury Groton Greenwi ch Thompson Colchester Plainfield Oxford Union Mansfield Enfield Ledyard Hebron Montville Ashford Pomfret Danbury Cornwall Tolland Haddam Granby New Milford Suffield Goshen Woodstock Lyme Guilford Lebanon Norfolk Newtown Killingly Litchfield Salisbury Stafford Sharon Kent NAUGATUCK VALLEY WESTERN NORTHWEST HILLS LOWER CONNECTICUT RIVER VALLEY I 010205 Miles Source: OPM, State of Connecticut, U.S. Census Bureau 2010 COG Boundaries MPO Boundaries Municipalities URBANIZED AREAS (CENSUS 2010) Bridgeport-Stamford, CT/NY Danbury, CT/NY Hartford, CT New Haven, CT Norwich-New London, CT/RI Springfield, MA/CT Waterbury, CT Worcester, MA/CT Urban Clusters Map : MPOs and Urbanized Areas in Connecticut CNVMPO Members  Beacon Falls  Bethlehem  Bristol  Cheshire  Middlebury  Naugatuck  Oxford  Plymouth  Prospect  Southbury  Thomaston  Waterbury  Watertown  Wolcott  Woodbury GBVMPO Members  Ansonia  Derby  Seymour  Shelton  Bethlehem Woodbury Southbury Oxford Beacon Falls Naugatuck Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston Watertown Middlebury Seymour Ansonia Derby Shelton Waterbury Mean: 27.4% Standard Deviation: 21.0% Universe: Individuals Red census block groups have a proportion of racial or ethnic minority populations >1 standard deviation than the mean. Minority Population 90% 69% 48% 27% 6% 0482 Miles I Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2014 Table B03002 Map : Minority Population in the Naugatuck Valley COG,   Environmental justice (EJ) populations are described in Executive Order , and consist of minority populations, low-income populations, or both. To identify the location of these populations, the NVCOG uses the most recent block group level survey data collected through the American Community Survey and published by the U.S. Census Bureau. Minority The NVCOG has found concentrations of racial and ethnic minority populations in the City of Waterbury (Map ). Many census block groups region-wide have very high proportions of minority populations, with a mean proportion of .%. Well over half of the census block groups in Waterbury are minority-majority, where the population is composed of less than fty percent (%) non-Hispanic whites. (Region-wide, racial and ethnic minorities make up .% of the population.) Of the region’s population, .% (,) identify as Hispanic or Latino, while .% (,) identify as Black or African-American and .% (,) identify as Asian. White Only (Not Hispanic or Latino) Hispanic or Latino Black or African American Asian Some Other Race 14.7% 6.4% 2.5% 74.2% 2.1% Minority Population in the Naugatuck Valley COG,  Environmental Justice Populations  Bethlehem Woodbury Southbury Oxford Beacon Falls Naugatuck Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston Watertown Middlebury Seymour Ansonia Derby Shelton Waterbury Mean: 19.4% Standard Deviation: 14.2% Universe: Individuals Red census block groups have a proportion of low-income populations >1 standard deviation from the mean. Low-Income Population 62% 48% 34% 19% 5% 0482 Miles I Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2014 Table C17002 Map : Low-Income Residents in the Naugatuck Valley COG,   Low-Income The NVCOG denes “low-income” residents as members of households with a median household income less than .x the federally-dened poverty threshold, which is dependent upon the size of the household. For example, the most common household arrangement in the Naugatuck Valley COG is a married couple with a single child. The federal government denes this household as living at or below the poverty threshold if their annual earnings are equal to or less than $,. The NVCOG’s low-income threshold would multiply this federal income gure by ., resulting in a low-income threshold of $, annual household earnings. Low-income populations are concentrated in central Waterbury (Map ), however this concentration is not as pronounced as the concentration of the minority population. There are also several census block groups in Ansonia and Bristol with a majority of their residents below the NVCOG’s low-income threshold. Of , individuals in the region, , (.%) fall below the NVCOG’s low-income threshold, , (.%) fall below the federal poverty threshold, and , (.%) fall below half of the federal poverty threshold. (Under the earlier example, half of the federal poverty threshold represents individuals in a two- parent, one-child household with less than $, in annual income.) Median household income for the region is $,, while median family income is $,. .x Federal Poverty Threshold . x NVCOG Low-Income Threshold . x .x Low-Income Population in the Naugatuck Valley COG,  75.5% 1.9% 3.1% 5.5% 5.8% 3.3% 4.9%  Bethlehem Woodbury Southbury Oxford Beacon Falls Naugatuck Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston Watertown Middlebury Seymour Ansonia Derby Shelton Waterbury The census block groups in red represent EJ communities in the Naugatuck Valley. These census block groups score greater than one standard deviation above the mean on both the proportion of minorities residing in the blockgroup and the proportion of households making less than 1.5x the federal poverty level. Qualifying Factors 2 1 0 0482 Miles I Source: U.S. Census Bureau NVCOG staff Map : EJ Communities in the Naugatuck Valley COG,   EJ Communities EJ communities are census block groups where disproportionately large populations of minorities and low-income residents reside. The NVCOG’s planning and programming should consider all EJ populations regardless of their concentration to identify and rectify adverse and disparate impacts on these populations, however these EJ communities are areas of particular concern due to their concentrated need and have been identied for the location of benecial projects and program activities. The NVCOG’s identied EJ communities for FFY  are shown in red on Map  (page ).  A more detailed map of Waterbury and the identied EJ communities, overlayed with the existing neighborhood boundaries as dened by the City of Waterbury, is on page . Commuting & Work Patterns According to  ACS counts, , residents, or .% of the region’s population, resides in EJ communities. However, these communities are home to only , workers, or .% of the region’s workforce. Over a quarter of workers living in these communities work in the City of Waterbury, and the remainder work across Connecticut. Over the past decade, the population working in historic inner ring suburbs of Waterbury such as Watertown and Naugatuck have decreased, while the proportion working in Cheshire and New Haven has risen. About % of workers in identied EJ communities commute by transit, much higher than the region as a whole, but only % of households lack access to a vehicle. Over half of the working population is employed in just three industries: health care and social assistance, manufacturing, and retail trade. Compared to the region as a whole, there is a concentration of manufacturing, retail, and food services employment in these communities, and a lack of employment in education. Educational Attainment & Housing The population in these communities is somewhat less educated than the region at large, with .% of the population over  attaining a college degree compared with .% in the NVCOG region’s urban core, .% regionally and .% statewide.  These education rates have been steady over the past ve years, compared with increases in average educational attainment regionally and statewide. Occupied housing units in these communities are .% renter- occupied, compared with .% renter-occupied regionally. Additionally, .% of all housing units in these communities are vacant, which is dramatically higher than the .% vacancy rate in the City of Waterbury and the .% vacancy rate regionally. 2 The most up-to-date EJ Communities may be found in the Appendix. 3 Naugatuck Valley Regional Prole 2015 Who we are: Top 5 Places of Work . Waterbury .% . Cheshire .% . Watertown .% . Hartford .% . New Haven .% Top 5 Industries . Health Care .% . Manufacturing .% . Retail Trade .% . Admin & Support .% . Food Services .% . Educational Attainment Source: U.S. Census Bureau LEHD O-D Employment Statistics, 2014 Less Than High School 14.5% High School or equivalent 19.8% Some College or Associate 21.7% College Degree 15.6% Not Available (or under 29) 28.6%  Qualifying Factors 2 1 0 3 2 1 4 6 12 13 7 14 15 18 16 9 8 17 10 19 11 20 21 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Waterville Fairmount Brookside Ind. Park Browns Meadows Overlook St. Margaret/Willow Pl.* Hillside Crownbrook New PAC North End Wolcott Road West End Brooklyn* Central Business District South End W.O.W.* Berkeley Heights Washington Hill East End Scott Road Capt. Neville Ind. Park Above is a detailed map of the FFY  EJ communities located in Waterbury, with an overlay of city- designated neighborhood boundaries. Many of these neighborhoods have neighborhood associations which discuss vital issues facing them at regular meetings. When planning for or programming projects that aect these regions, existing neighborhood organizations should be considered a primary resource for outreach. Neighborhoods with asterisks represent Neighborhood Revitalization Zones, a special state designation. Map : EJ Communities in Waterbury,   Partnerships The NVCOG will work to incorporate the needs of EJ communities and EJ populations in all aspects of its planning and programming activities. To better understand the needs and potential eects of the NVCOG’s activities on these neighborhoods and populations, it is helpful to build relationships with community leaders and representative organizations. The NVCOG has begun building a list of agencies and community organizations for direct public outreach regarding the NVCOG’s activities in their neighborhoods or aecting their constituencies: Organization Name Brooklyn Neighborhood Association CT Department of Public Health DEEP Environmental Justice Program Main Street Waterbury Hispanic Coalition of Greater Waterbury Huntington Woods Apartments Greater Waterbury United Way Lakewood Neighborhood Association Naugatuck Valley Health District Northwest Workforce Investment Board Valley United Way Waterbury Neighborhood Council Waterville Community Club Walnut-Orange-Walsh NRZ In addition to the above list, the NVCOG maintains a mailing list with a broad range of organizations, non-prots, and stakeholders which should be notied of the NVCOG’s programs and plans. Transit Dependence The NVCOG, in its activities as an MPO and a COG, participates in transportation planning and programming for populations which depend on publicly-funded transportation for accessibility. These populations are typically not included as EJ populations. For reference, the NVCOG has identied the locations of transit-dependent populations in the region using two metrics: the proportion of the working population who commute via means other than a private automobile, and the proportion of households lacking access to an automobile. These two measures provide very dierent pictures because a large number of retirement communities and senior centers are located in rural areas and transit options vary across the NVCOG region. Maps of these populations may be found in the Appendix.  Environmental Justice Analyses The key means of implementing the NVCOG Environmental Justice Policy is to incorporate economic justice impact analyses into projects and programs. To ensure these analyses are performed accurately and consistently, the NVCOG has created the following standards for the project- and program-level analyses. When considering impacts of a program or project, all phases must be considered from staging through construction to completion and review. Project-Level Environmental Justice Analysis Because projects are generally more localized than programs, project impacts on EJ communities are more tangible and measureable than program impacts. As such, a quantitative method is often the best method to analyze projected and actual impacts. When picking a unit of spatial analysis, such as a census tract or census block, consistently use that unit when identifying populations negatively and positively impacted. . Spatially identify project area(s). Outline the spatial boundaries of the project including all staging areas. . Spatially identify population(s) most negatively impacted by project. Using the most current spatial and demographic data available, identify and spatially outline the populations and neighborhoods which may be most negatively impacted by the staging, construction, and post-construction phases of the project. Negative impacts could include, but are not limited to, the following: noise, pollution, increased travel times, decreased accessibility, increased cost of parking or transit fares, and other environmental side eects. . Spatially identify population(s) most positively impacted by project. Similar to step , use data to identify and spatially outline populations and neighborhoods which may benet from the project. Positive impacts include, but are not limited to, the following: decreased travel times, increased sales for local businesses in the construction area, increased choices of transit modes, and increased variety of public transit destinations. . Evaluate if any of the positively and negatively impacted populations are also EJ populations. Use the grid below to determine if the spatially identied population(s) are also EJ popluations using the following demographic characteristics: Figure . Population Characteristics Minority Non-Minority Low Income 7 7 Non-Low Income 7 ; If the answer is “yes,” proceed to step  to learn from the community about the project’s potential positive and negative impacts. If the answer is “no,” then no further EJ analysis is needed. Record the work you have done thus far and le it with the project documentation. Implementation  . Learn more about the potential negative impacts to EJ populations. Engage EJ populations through multiple communication channels to better understand the potential negative and positive impacts of the proposed project, and to identify potential mitigating actions or project alterations. Methods to engage communities are detailed in the NVCOG Public Outreach Policy . . Identify any disparate impacts on EJ populations. Compare the negative impacts on EJ populations with those on non-EJ populations to discern if EJ populations are disproportionately-negatively aected. Compare these negative impacts with positive impacts on EJ communities. . Identify mitigating actions or project alterations to be included in the project. Consider the mitigating actions described by the aected EJ populations and identied by NVCOG sta. Mitigating actions should directly relate to the disparate impacts, e.g. moving a staging location, providing alternate access for the duration of a project, or making parallel investments in transit improvements. Keep in mind that the reallocation of project resources to a more benecial project for the EJ population may also be considered a mitigating action. Determine which mitigating actions the project will include and document them. Program-Level Environmental Justice Analysis The impacts of the NVCOG’s programs and planning initiatives at the program level are region-wide rather than localized, and thus more dicult to quantify. A more qualitative approach is recommended? alongside a spatial analysis?to identify and to better understand the positive and negative impacts of programs on EJ populations. When identifying populations, be certain to use the same spatial unit for those who may be aected positively, negatively, or both. . Identify the program’s past and anticipated positive impacts and beneciaries. Identify anticipated program benets and the populations which may be aected. If the program has resulted in the development of projects and/or improvements, list them and the populations who have benetted. . Identify the program’s past and anticipated negative impacts and the populations aected. Detail any existing and projected negative impacts and identify the populations aected. . Evaluate if any of the positively and negatively impacted populations are also EJ populations. Use the grid below to determine if the spatially identied population(s) are also EJ populations using the following demographic characteristics: Figure . Population Characteristics Minority Non-Minority Low Income 7 7 Non-Low Income 7 ; If the answer is “yes,” proceed to step . If the answer is “no,” then no further EJ analysis is needed. Record the work you have done thus far and le it with the program documentation. . Learn more about the program’s past and anticipated negative impacts from EJ populations. Engage EJ populations to better understand the potential negative and positive impacts of the proposed program, and to identify potential mitigating actions or program alterations. Methods to engage the communities are detailed in the NVCOG Public Outreach Policy .  . Identify and document mitigating actions and program improvements. Consider the mitigating actions described by the aected EJ populations and identifed by NVCOG sta. Mitigating actions should directly relate to the negative impacts, e.g. better outreach to eected populations, redirection of program priorities, a change in the structure of advisory committees, or other actions which could provide a greater voice and benet to EJ populations. Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) As the planning agency hosting the Central Naugatuck Valley Region MPO and cooperating with the Greater Bridgeport?Valley MPO, the NVCOG prepares a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) every four () years, programming federal-, state-, and local-aid transportation improvements. The TIP outlines the scheduling of transportation projects. All line-items in the TIP must be individually analyzed using the EJ Analysis processes outlined on pages -. In addition, the TIP as a whole should be analyzed using these processes to discern whether the net eect of the program has a disproportionately negative impact on EJ populations. Because the TIP is essentially a nancial document, the EJ analysis process should include a calculation of whether EJ communities are receiving their fair share of public investment. “Fair share” is dened as a share of dollars which positively impact EJ communities in proportion to their share of the regional population: EJ Communities Population = , = .% Total Regional Population ,  To calculate whether the TIP conforms to this fair share determination, total the programmed dollars which positively impact EJ communities, subtract programmed dollars which negatively impact EJ communities, and divide by the total number of programmed dollars to calculate the EJ communities’ share of TIP dollars: Positive Impacts ($) – Negative Impacts ($) = EJ Communities Share Total Programmed ($) In addition to the TIP for the MPOs, the NVCOG and its constituent MPOs also cooperate with the State of Connecticut to develop the Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). Since the TIP and the STIP are concurrently developed, all projects that are nalized in the STIP must follow the same EJ analyses. The next complete TIP for the NVCOG is scheduled for FY . TIP Amendments While the TIP is written every four years, changes in the scope or cost of projects occur frequently. These changes require an amendment to the TIP. Reprioritizations at the state level may also require an amendment to the TIP. The TIP amendment process is necessarily quicker than the TIP development process, but TIP amendments should be vetted through an environmental justice analysis to identify any disproportionate impacts which may arise and whether mitigating actions are necessary. When TIP amendments are requested by the state, any identifed disproportionate impacts on EJ populations must be negotiated with the state before approving the TIP amendment.  Unied Planning Work Programs (UPWPs) The Unied Planning Work Program (UPWP) is similar to the TIP in that it outlays projects the NVCOG shall undertake within a given period (one year), but the UPWP deals more directly with planning processes and deliverables. While work done under the UPWP is more dicult to quantify, and its impacts are less immediately apparent, it is important to consider environmental justice during the development and implementation of the UPWP. To incorporate the principles of environmental justice into the UPWP, the following procedures are recommended: . Incorporate environmental justice analyses into large or impactful deliverables . Incorporate environmental justice training for sta . Hold UPWP public hearings or public informational meetings in EJ communities Long-Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs) The NVCOG is required to create Long-Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs) for the two MPOs in its planning region. LRTPs typically have twenty () year horizons, and are used to identify projects for inclusion in the TIP and the UPWP. Additionally, LRTPs serve to identify a unied vision for the direction of transportation planning and infrastructure in the region. LRTPs must conform to the principles of environmental justice by proactively considering the needs of communities and populations of concern, and negative impacts on those communities by otherwise well-intended projects and programs. As such, the LRTP should contain an environmental justice analysis of proposed improvements. Other Planning & Programs The NVCOG will work to implement environmental justice principles in other aspects of its planning work. All NVCOG planning sta will be trained in environmental justice analyses and given reference materials. Additionally, all public participation requirements make explicit mention of environmental justice and the need to give additional consideration to EJ populations and communities during all phases of planning: plan development, outreach, and publication. Updates to This Policy Updates to this environmental justice policy must conform to the NVCOG Public Outreach Policy . This document qualies as a Minor Project under the provisions of that policy. For this policy, a minor technical update includes adjustments to the list of Partnerships and their contact information, adjustments to match changes in other relevant policies which do not aect the principles or goals of this policy, and general technical alterations.  Current EJ Communities (ed. //) A: FY  EJ Communities A: FFY  EJ Communities – Waterbury detail A: FFY  EJ Communities – Bristol detail A: Minority Population,  A: Low-Income Population,   Additional Maps (ed. ..) A: Transit Commuters,  A: Vehicle Access,  A: Elderly Population,   Program EJ Analysis Form  Project EJ Analysis Form  NVCOG Resolution Appendices A Bethlehem Woodbury Southbury Oxford Beacon Falls Naugatuck Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston Watertown Middlebury Seymour Ansonia Derby Shelton Waterbury The census block groups in red represent EJ communities in the Naugatuck Valley. These census block groups score greater than one standard deviation above the mean on both the proportion of minorities residing in the blockgroup and the proportion of households making less than 1.5x the federal poverty level. Qualifying Factors 2 1 0 Previously ID’d Communities 0482 Miles I Source: U.S. Census Bureau NVCOG staff Map A: FFY  NVCOG EJ Communities ( data) A Qualifying Factors 2 1 0 Additional Communities* 3 2 1 4 14 15 17 12 19 18 24 20 10 11 21 9 23 8 26 27 13 7 6 5 25 16 22 Above is a detailed map of the FFY  EJ communities located in Waterbury, with an overlay of city-designated neighborhood boundaries. Many of these neighborhoods have neighborhood associations which discuss vital issues facing them at regular meetings. When planning for or programming projects that aect these regions, existing neighborhood organizations should be considered a primary resource for outreach. Neighborhoods with asterisks represent Neighborhood Revitalization Zones, a special state designation. *Additional Communities were identied for FFY . Map A: EJ Communities in Waterbury,  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Berkeley Heights Boulevard Bouley Manor Brooklyn* Brookside Ind. Pk. Browns Meadows Capt. Neville Ind. Pk. Central Bus. District Crownbrook East End Fairmount Hill Street Hillside Hopeville Lakewood New PAC North End Overlook Scott Road South End Town Plot 23 24 25 26 27 Washington Hill Waterville West End Willow Plaza* Wolcott Road W.O.W. A Qualifying Factors 2 1 0 Above is a detailed map of the FFY  EJ communities located in Bristol. Bristol does not have as clearly-dened neighborhoods as Waterbury (Map A). When planning for or programming projects that aect these communities, NVCOG sta should work with the City of Bristol to identify grassroots organizations and other means with which to coordinate with aected residents. Map A: EJ Communities in Bristol,  1 Huntington Woods 1 A Bethlehem Woodbury Southbury Oxford Beacon Falls Naugatuck Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston Watertown Middlebury Seymour Ansonia Derby Shelton Waterbury Mean: 28.2% Standard Deviation: 26.1% Universe: Individuals Red census block groups have a proportion of racial or ethnic minority populations >1 standard deviation than the mean. Minority Population 80% 54% 28% 2% 0482 Miles I Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2015 Table B03002 Map A: Minority Population in the Naugatuck Valley COG,  A Bethlehem Woodbury Southbury Oxford Beacon Falls Naugatuck Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston Watertown Middlebury Seymour Ansonia Derby Shelton Waterbury Mean: 20.1% Standard Deviation: 18.7%% Universe: Individuals Red census block groups have a proportion of low-income populations >1 standard deviation from the mean. Low-Income Population 76% 57% 39% 20% 1% 0482 Miles I Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2015 Table C17002 Map A: Low-Income Residents in the Naugatuck Valley COG,  A Bethlehem Woodbury Southbury Oxford Beacon Falls Naugatuck Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston Watertown Middlebury Seymour Ansonia Derby Shelton Waterbury Mean: 2.3% Standard Deviation: 4.5% Universe: Workers Age 16+ Commute by Transit 20.2% 15.7% 11.3% 6.8% 2.3% 0482 Miles I Source:U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2015 Table B08301 Map A: Workers Commuting by Transit in the Naugatuck Valley,  A Bethlehem Woodbury Southbury Oxford Beacon Falls Naugatuck Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston Watertown Middlebury Seymour Ansonia Derby Shelton Waterbury Mean: 10.0% Standard Deviation: 12.2% Universe: Households No Access to a Vehicle 59% 47% 34% 22% 10% 0482 Miles I Source:U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2015 Table B25045 Map A: Households Lacking Vehicle Access in the Naugatuck Valley,  A Bethlehem Woodbury Southbury Oxford Beacon Falls Naugatuck Prospect Cheshire Wolcott Bristol Plymouth Thomaston Watertown Middlebury Seymour Ansonia Derby Shelton Waterbury % of Population >65 Years 43% 34% 25% 16% 7% 0482 Miles I Source: U.S. Census Bureau ACS 2015 Table B01001 Map A: Elderly Population in the Naugatuck Valley,     bb                                                                                                                            b   b 0                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ?????????? ???????????????b?????????????b  ??????????????? ??????????????????? ???????????b??????????????????b???????    bb                                                                                                                         b  b                                                     0                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????????b???????? ??????????????????? ??? ?????????????????