Council on Environmental Quality Meeting Minutes

Minutes of the May 24, 2023, meeting of the Council on Environmental Quality (Council). 

MEMBERS PRESENT: Kip Kolesinskas (Acting Chair), Charles Vidich, David Kalafa, William Warzecha, Alicea Charamut, Christopher Donnelly, and Denise Rodosevich.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Paul Aresta (Executive Director), Bruce Wittchen (Office of Policy and Management – OPM), Rebecca Dahl – (OPM), Lisette Stone (Department of Public Health (DPH)), and Margaret Miner. 

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

Vidich made a motion to modify the agenda to include Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) Petition 1574; seconded by Kalafa. The motion was approved unanimously.

2. Approval of Minutes of April 26, 2023
Kolesinskas noted that there were two revisions to the draft meeting minutes: 1) changing “carbon neutral” to “ zero carbon” when discussing the annual report, and 2) changing “now” to “no”  when discussing proposed changes to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). Vidich made a motion to approve the revised draft minutes of April 26, 2023; seconded by Warzecha. The motion was approved unanimously with Rodosevich abstaining because she was not present at the previous meeting.

3. Chair’s Report
Kolesinskas introduced two new appointments to the Council: Denise Rodosevich and Christopher Donnelly. Rodosevich and Donnelly summarized their education and professional experience. Council members also introduced themselves and provided a summary of their professional experience.

4. Citizen Comment Period
Margaret Miner commented on the Grupes Dam Rehabilitation project in New Canaan and noted her frustration regarding the adjudication process at the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) for a dam safety permit for the proposed project and the scoping process associated with this action. Margaret Miner questioned the Council’s role in the scoping process and questioned the fairness of the adjudication process at DEEP. Charamut also commented on the adjudication process and suggested that DEEP could have more carefully considered the information provided by the intervenors.

5. Citizen Complaints and Inquiries Received

• Aresta reported that he received an inquiry regarding a possible Department of Transportation (DOT) easement on property that was proposed to be transferred in Wallingford. He added that he referred the attorney to the Supervising Property Agent for the DOT, Division of Rights of Way and to the property assets manager for OPM.
  
  
• Aresta reported that he received a complaint (email and phone) about indoor air quality resulting from a neighboring business, which is operating as a nail salon. He added that he referred the complainants to DPH’s Environmental & Occupational Health Assessment Program.
  
  
• Aresta reported that he was copied on a few emails regarding concerns about the impacts of the existing and proposed use of the Tweed Airport. He added that the deadline for the submission of comments regarding the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) was on May 1.
  
  
• Aresta reported that he received a complaint regarding the scoping process for the Grupes Dam Rehabilitation project. Aresta summarized the Council’s role and responsibility in publishing notices in the Environmental Monitor; clarified that the revised scoping notice published for the Grupes Dam Rehabilitation project included information about the requested public scoping meeting; and summarized the sponsoring agency’s role in determining if an Environmental Impact Evaluation (EIE) is required for a state action based on an environmental review that is documented in an Environmental Review Checklist.
  
  
• Aresta reported that he contacted the Department of Agriculture (DOA) to inquire if the agency had issued a decision about the development rights issue for the property in Sharon. He added that the DOA responded that no decision has been made.
  
  
• Aresta reported that he also contacted DPH regarding the status of the drinking water at the Southeast School in Mansfield. He added that DPH has not yet provided the requested information.
  
  Charamut commented on state agencies’ review of projects, such as the Grupes Dam Rehabilitation Project, and the public’s role in the Connecticut Environmental Policy Act (CEPA) scoping process. Kalafa also commented on the CEPA process and questioned if the sponsoring agency should be responsible for determining if an EIE is warranted. Charamut made a motion to invite a representative from DEEP to provide information regarding DEEP’s role and the role of citizens’ in the adjudication process at DEEP; seconded by Kalafa. Rodosevich commented that the process might have been followed during the adjudication proceeding, but legitimate information provided by the public might not have been appropriately considered. The motion was approved unanimously.

6. Executive Director’s Report

• Aresta reported that it is expected that the Council staff position will be filled before the next Council meeting.
  
  
• Aresta reported that the annual report was provided to Governor Lamont on May 3, and distributed to the public (subscribers), the press, and legislators. Aresta added that Ainsworth conducted a total of two interviews with a reporter for WSHU and a reporter for WNPR/CT Public Radio.
  
  Aresta reported that the Council received new/revised data from DEEP, after the distribution of the annual report, regarding the amount of solid waste diverted in 2021. The original data provided by DEEP and identified in the annual report resulted in a diversion rate of 43 percent, while the new data suggests that the diversion rate for 2021 was 38 percent. He noted that the new data doesn’t change the big picture that the state was well below the diversion rate goal of 60 percent by 2024. He suggested that the Council could develop an “Environmental Update”, with new and/or revised data. 
  
  Aresta reviewed the statistics on how many subscribers opened the email regarding the availability of the annual report and how many clicked on at least one link. He added that he also sent the press release to a large number of reporters and a notice regarding the availability of the annual report to legislators through the listserv. 
  
  Donnelly questioned the process for the development of the next annual report and what the Council should consider for content for the next annual report. Aresta identified some potential refinements for the next annual report, including strategies for more public engagement and possible changes to the content and format of the annual report.
  
  
• Aresta reported that OPM submitted three notices in a recent edition of the Environmental Monitor for three proposed land transfers. He added that the Council submitted comments for the proposed land transfer in North Canaan and the DOT suggested transferring custody and control of the parcels to DEEP. Aresta noted that he was unsure if DEEP would take “custody and control” of the parcels and suggested following up with DEEP to determine if the agency proposes to take custody of the parcels in North Canaan or if they are aware if the town of North Canaan and/or a land conservation organization are interested in preserving the parcels as open space. Charamut made a motion to send a letter to DEEP to inquire if the agency or other entity would take custody and control of the parcels and preserve them as open space; seconded by Rodosevich. The motion passed unanimously. Rodosevich also suggested including information about open space preservation as a climate change mitigation measure in the letter to DEEP.
  
  
• Aresta summarized a few media articles/press releases that focused on the environment in the last month and noted that there were three media articles that referenced the Council’s annual report.

Kolesinskas noted that the Council would take a five-minute break at 10:37 AM. The Council meeting resumed at 10:42 AM.

• Aresta reported that the Water Planning Council Advisory Group, which Charamut co-chairs, established a Source Water Protection subcommittee and the subcommittee will be developing a white paper on Source Water Protection. He added that the Council does not take an active role in developing content for reports for other organizations, but Council staff might want to monitor the activities of this subcommittee because source water protection could impact several indicators in the Council’s annual report. Charamut added that the white paper would identify any gaps in source water protection, and that a subcommittee on rate restructuring for water efficiency is also meeting.

7. State Agency and Legislative Actions 
a. DEEP

• Release-Based Remediation Program – update
  Aresta summarized the purpose of the Release-Based Remediation Working Group, noted that the Working Group met on May 9, and that DEEP distributed and reviewed two documents, including a “Roadmap for the first year following discovery of a release” and the draft “Tiers checklist”. Aresta noted that the draft Tiers checklist is meant for releases that have been characterized and require longer time frames to remediate. He added that there was discussion regarding the final concept papers for subcommittees 9 and 10 and that the next meeting will be on June 13.
  
  
• Connecticut Lakes, Rivers and Ponds Preservation Account (Account)– Request for Information
  Aresta summarized the intent and authorized use of funds in the Account and reported that he requested information from DEEP regarding the amount and use of funds from the Account for 2022. He added that information on revenue for 2022 was provided, but no other information was provided. Kolesinskas and Vidich both noted the importance of knowing how the funds are being used. Charamut added that funding for an invasive species expert, possibly shared with the University of Connecticut and/or the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station, is extremely important.

b. Connecticut Siting Council (CSC)

• Docket 516 (energy, Fairfield - Bridgeport) - Comments recommended
  Aresta reported that he reviewed a proposal by United Illuminating ( UI) to remove existing 115-kV lines and bonnets that are located on 157 Connecticut DOT-owned railroad catenary structures and rebuild the transmission lines on 102 new double- or single-circuit self-supporting steel monopoles, aligned generally parallel to the Metro-North Railroad (MNR) tracks. He added that draft comments have been developed that address the provision of best management practices; vegetation management; erosion and sedimentation (E&S) controls; protection of wetlands and water features; invasive species control; and inspections and education. Vidich and Kolesinskas discussed the use of E&S control measures as both an exclusionary barrier for wildlife and for reducing erosion and sedimentation. Rodosevich suggested modifying the draft comments to minimize the use of plastic for E&S controls and to reduce the amount of tree clearing, to the extent practicable.
  
  
• Petition 1569 (telecom, Avon)  - Comments recommended
  Aresta reported that he reviewed a proposal by Dish to replace equipment on an existing “flagpole” monopole and expand the equipment compound.  He added that the facility appears to be within a Natural Diversity Database (NDDB) buffer area and that the Petition materials do not adequately address how the Petitioner would control erosion and sedimentation given the proximity of the existing facility to wetlands. He noted that draft comments have been developed that address protection of state-listed species and wetlands. Vidich suggested adding information that the proposed expansion would be within the Town’s 100-foot upland review area for wetlands.
  
  
• Petition 1573 (energy, Brookfield – Southbury) - Comments recommended
  Aresta reported that he reviewed a proposal by Eversource to modify four 115-kV transmission lines, including replacing the conductors, static wire, and 49 existing structures with 55 new structures and adding six (6) new midspan structures for a total of 61 structures. He noted that draft comments have been developed that address the provision of best management practices; protection of groundwater, wetlands, watercourses, vernal pools, wildlife, and agricultural soils; invasive species control; E&S controls; inspections and education; and the proper disposal of chemically treated wood. Donnelly suggested adding a sentence to the comments to reduce the amount of tree clearing, to the extent practicable.
  
  
• Petition 1574 (energy, Southington – Meriden) - Comments recommended
  Aresta reported that he reviewed a proposal by Eversource to modify existing transmission lines, including the replacement of 101 existing structures and the addition of 23 new structures, within existing ROWs extending approximately 11.2 miles from Southington through Cheshire.  He added that in addition to the structure modifications above ground, a short length of a transmission line would be installed underground in Meriden. He noted that draft comments have been developed that address the provision of best management practices; protection of groundwater, wetlands, watercourses, vernal pools, and agricultural soils; invasive species control; E&S controls; inspections and education; and the proper disposal of chemically treated wood. 
  
  Warzecha made a motion to approve the revised draft comments for CSC Docket 516, Petition 1569, Petition 1573, and Petition 1574; seconded by Vidich. The motion was approved unanimously.
  
  
• Petition 1497A (fuel cell, Bridgeport) – No comments recommended at this time 
  Aresta reported that he reviewed a proposal by Bloom Energy to amend a CSC decision/approval in Petition 1497 regarding the installation of a 2,000-kW fuel cell facility.  He added that the Petitioner was requesting the relocation of the fuel cell facility from one portion of the Hospital property to another at 267 Grant Street. He summarized the land use and environmental characteristics of the proposed site and noted that the Petitioner would install a wall to the east of the proposed fuel cell facility to ensure compliance with noise standards.
  
  
• Petition 1570 (telecom, New Britain) - No comments recommended at this time 
  Aresta reported that he reviewed a proposal by Dish to install equipment at the 80-foot level of the existing 110-foot monopole and expand the facility compound by 63 square feet. He summarized the land use and environmental characteristics of the site.
  
  
• Petition 1571 (telecom, Norwich) – No comments recommended at this time
  Aresta reported that he reviewed a proposal by Dish to install equipment at the 106-foot level of the existing 150-foot monopole and expand the facility compound by 180 square feet. He summarized the land use and environmental characteristics of the site.
  
  
• Petition 1572 (solar, East Windsor) - No comments recommended at this time
  Aresta reported that he reviewed a proposal by East Windsor Solar Two, LLC to develop a 4.0-megawatt (MW) solar photovoltaic (PV) facility located at 31 Thrall Road in East Windsor. He added that the proposed project has been reviewed by DEEP and the DOA and both agencies have determined that the proposed project would not materially affect the status of core forest or prime farmland soils, respectively. He noted that an agricultural co-use plan has been proposed that includes rotational grazing of sheep; managing vegetation on the remaining approximately 5.94 acres of cropland outside of the array area; and a requirement that no grading, cutting, filling, or topsoil removal take place on the proposed site. He then summarized the environmental characteristics of the proposed site. Kolesinskas commented that converting prime farmland for energy production is a poor use of prime farmland. Vidich suggested inviting a representative from the DOA to a future meeting to discuss farmland preservation and the use of prime farmland for energy production.

c. Legislature
Aresta referred to a document that was distributed to Council members and posted on the website in advance of the meeting that listed the current status of proposed bills that the Council submitted testimony for and a proposed bill that might impact the Council. He added that the end of the regular legislative session will be on June 7.

8. Other Business 
Aresta noted that the next Council meeting will be on June 28, and it will be a hybrid (in-person/remote) meeting at DEEP’s office building at 79 Elm Street in Hartford.

Aresta noted that the United States General Services Administration (GSA) notified the Council that the agency intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze potential impacts from the proposed construction of a new Federal Courthouse in Hartford. He added that the three sites under consideration are all previously developed sites and that there will be a meeting to discuss the proposed project on June 6, 2023.

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

Vidich made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:33 AM; seconded by Donnelly. 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.)