Council on Environmental Quality Meeting Minutes

Minutes of the November 16, 2022 meeting of the Council on Environmental Quality (Council) held in compliance with Public Act 22-3. 

MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Ainsworth (Acting Chair), Charles Vidich, David Kalafa, William Warzecha, Alicea Charamut, and Kip Kolesinskas.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Paul Aresta (Executive Director), Bruce Wittchen (Office of Policy and Management (OPM)), and Camille Fontanella (Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP)). Member of the public that spoke: Margaret Miner.

1. Call to Order: Establishment of a Quorum
At 9:30 AM, Ainsworth called the meeting to order, took attendance, and confirmed that there was a quorum of Council members present. 

2. Approval of Minutes of October 26, 2022
Warzecha made a motion to approve the draft minutes of October 26, 2022; seconded by Charamut. The motion was approved unanimously.

Ainsworth made a motion to amend the agenda to add Petition 1548 to item 7b and to change the order of the items on the agenda to address items 7b and 7c prior to the Chair’s Report; seconded by Kalafa. The motion was approved unanimously.

7. State Agency Actions 
b. Connecticut Siting Council (CSC)

• Petition 1544 (solar, Norfolk) - Comments recommended
  Aresta noted that he reviewed a proposal from LSE Pyxis LLC to build a four-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic (PV) facility on two parcels, located primarily in Norfolk. He added that the proposed site is owned by the town of Norfolk and includes a closed landfill, transfer station, storage area, and undeveloped land. He stated that the first two arrays (Array 1A and Array 1B) are planned for the former capped landfill, while the third array (Array 2) is planned for a wooded area to the west. He also noted that draft comments have been developed that address wildlife, wetlands and vernal pools, and groundwater protection. Vidich suggested revising the draft comments to change the name of the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plan to the Spill Prevention and Control Plan.
  
  
• Petition 1545 (energy, Norwich – Montville) - Comments recommended
  Aresta noted that he reviewed a proposal from Eversource to replace a total of 76 transmission line structures and install one new transmission line structure along an eight-mile right-of-way (ROW) between Norwich and Montville. He added that comments have been developed, consistent with previous comments to Eversource for transmission line projects, to provide a copy of their best management practices and other referenced documents for public inspection; protection of wildlife, wetlands, vernal pools and groundwater; and provisions for invasive species control, soil testing, and inspections. Warzecha questioned if Eversource was required to plant new trees to replace trees removed during construction of the proposed project. Ainsworth replied that planting of new trees was not required, but Eversource might replant some areas for soil stabilization.
  
  Vidich made a motion to send the revised comments for Petition 1544 and the comments for Petition 1545 to the CSC; seconded by Kalafa. The motion was approved unanimously.

• Petition 1543 (telecom, Danbury) - No comments recommended 
  Aresta noted that he reviewed a proposal from Verizon to install a wireless telecommunications facility on the roof of an existing four story building at 19 Kenosia Ave in Danbury. He added that there would be no ground disturbance, tree removal or site grading, and the proposed site is not located within a Natural Diversity Database (NDDB) buffer area.
  
  
• Petition 1546 (telecom, Hartford) - No comments recommended
  Aresta noted that he reviewed a proposal from Verizon to install a wireless telecommunications facility on the roof of an existing three-story academic building at 300 Summit Street in Hartford. He added that there would be no ground disturbance, tree removal or site grading, and the proposed site is not located within an NDDB buffer area.
  
  
• Petition 1547 (telecom, Avon) - No comments recommended
  Aresta noted that he reviewed a proposal from SBA communications to 1) replace an existing 100-foot laminated wood tower with a new 130-foot monopole tower, and 2) expand the facility compound to accommodate additional equipment and a generator for the Town of Avon. He added that the proposed replacement tower would be located near the Town’s transfer station/former landfill in Avon, and that the proposed facility is not within an NDDB buffer area.
  
  
• Petition 1548 (fuel cell, Bristol) - No comments recommended
  Aresta noted that he reviewed a proposal from Bloom Energy to install customer-side fuel cells with a capacity of 600-kW and associated equipment in a grassy area at the end of the Bristol Hospital emergency department entrance driveway. He added that the proposed site is developed, it is not within or proximate to identified wetlands or watercourse resources, it is not within an NDDB area or a floodzone, and the proposed facility would comply with applicable noise standards.

c. Department of Transportation (DOT)

• Land Transfer in North Canaan
  Aresta noted that the DOT is proposing to transfer an approximately 27-acre property, consisting of four parcels, located along the easterly side of Ashley Falls Road and North Elm Street in North Canaan. He added that the property is identified as undeveloped wooded land with ponds, streams, other water, or wetlands; a portion of the property is within a 100-year flood zone and is subject to a Flood Management Certificate from DEEP; and it is located within an area designated as forestland habitat. He also noted that draft comments have been developed that recommend that the state retain the parcels as open space or include restrictions on the future use of the parcels that would retain the undeveloped nature of the property. Vidich questioned if the property would be sold to the highest bidder. Aresta responded that the notice in the Environmental Monitor states that the property would be offered for sale to the highest bidder. Warzecha questioned the former use of the property. Aresta responded that the property is currently undeveloped and that he was unaware of the past uses of the property.
  
  Vidich made a motion to send the comments regarding the proposed land transfer in North Canaan to the DOT; seconded by Kalafa. The motion was approved unanimously.

3. Chair’s Report (vacancies on the Council)
Ainsworth noted that there are still vacancies on the Council and that one or two individuals have expressed interest in participating on the Council. He added that next month’s meeting will be an in-person meeting with the option to participate remotely as well.

4. Citizen Comment Period
Margaret Miner commented on the proposed land transfers by the DOT in Suffield, Waterford, and North Canaan. She added that the process for land transfer is confusing, there is limited environmental information in the notice in the Environmental Monitor, and there is a question regarding the final disposition of the properties following the comment period. Charamut questioned if the Council has reviewed DEEP’s policy regarding reviewing notices for land transfers. Fontanella stated that the Office of Planning and Program Development at DEEP consults with other divisions within the agency, including Land Acquisition and Management to review and provide comments on proposed land transfers. Charamut added that there is more information regarding the environmental attributes of a property identified in a land transfer notice, but it is challenging to observe the agencies’ deliberations on whether to retain the property or not compared to the land transfer process in the legislature.

5. Citizen Complaints and Inquiries Received

• Aresta reported that he received an inquiry from a representative of the United States Army Reserve (USAR) about the state's public notice process in order to solicit comments and obtain state and local official review of the Finding of Suitability to Transfer (FOST). He added that the USAR is in the process of transferring an Army Reserve Center in Fairfield to the Town. Aresta stated that he informed the person that the publication of a notice in the Environmental Monitor is for certain state actions or certain land transfers by state agencies and he referred the person to DEEP, which might be able to assist with environmental review and public notice.
  
  
• Aresta reported that he received an inquiry from a redevelopment agency regarding the applicability of the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (CEPA) for certain redevelopment projects. Aresta added that he informed the person that the notices in the Environmental Monitor are for state actions and a sponsoring agency would determine if a scoping notice is needed based on the Environmental Classification Document.
  
  
• Aresta reported that he received an inquiry regarding the land transfer notice template and to whom comments should be sent. He added that he reviewed the applicable statute, consulted with OPM, and refined the land transfer notice template to provide greater clarity regarding comments. He noted that the revised land transfer notice template would have comments sent to OPM and the sponsoring agency.
  
  
• Aresta reported that he received a request for environmental enforcement information for a company from the Ohio Attorney General’s office. He added that he informed the investigator that the Council was not a regulatory agency and did not have the information that was requested, and he provided information for the appropriate contacts at DEEP.

6. Executive Director’s Report

• Aresta noted that the interviews for the Environmental Analysts position should be completed this week.
  
  
• Aresta reported that the Public Utilities Regulatory Authority (PURA) approved the membership and structure for the Vegetation Management Working Group (VMWG). He added that PURA referenced the Council’s letter of October 5, 2022 calling for the “prompt formation” of the VMWG and the opportunity for members of the public to observe and provide comments.
  
  
• Aresta reviewed Annual Report data for the forest inventory in the state that is developed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service. He added that the USDA Forest Service estimates that forests in Connecticut declined by approximately 0.6 percent from 2019 to 2020, which is the most recent data available. Vidich questioned how the Forest Service estimates the amount of forest cover in the state. Kolesinskas responded that the Forest Service uses a number of sample plots and statistical analysis to estimate the amount of forest cover in the state and noted that Connecticut has a relatively high number of sample plots compared to other states.

7. State Agency Actions
a. DEEP

• Release-Based Remediation Program Working Group - update
  Aresta reported that on November 8, the Working Group met and DEEP provided information regarding recommended reportable concentrations and reviewed the status of various environmental databases. He added that the two recently formed subcommittees have meetings scheduled for November 16 and 17 and that the next meeting of the Working Group is scheduled for December 13. Charamut stated that there were some members of the Working Group that had concerns regarding the proposed reportable concentrations and who would be required to report such information to DEEP.

8. Other Business 

Ainsworth asked if there were any other items for discussion by Council members. 

Vidich made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:24 AM; seconded by Charamut. The motion was approved unanimously.

A recording of this meeting is available here¹ and by email request of the Council (email to: paul.aresta@ct.gov). (Disclaimer: The transcript associated with the meeting recording is computer-generated and may contain typos that have not been edited.)

¹ Passcode: z?t7c#9b