Council on Environmental Quality Meeting Minutes

Minutes of the June 25, 2025, meeting of the Council on Environmental Quality (Council) held in person at 79 Elm Street, Hartford and via Zoom.

MEMBERS PRESENT: (in person) Christopher Donnelly, Linda Bowers, (remote) Keith Ainsworth (Acting Chair), Aimee Petras, Timothy Bishop, and Denise Rodosevich.

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Paul Aresta (Council - Executive Director), Ryan Carboni (Council – Environmental Analyst), Jordan DiDomenico (Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP)), Bruce Wittchen (Office of Policy and Management (OPM), and Cinzia Lettieri. 

1. Call to Order: Establishment of a Quorum
At 9:31 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 May 28, 2025
Bowers made a motion to approve the draft minutes from the Council’s meeting on May 28, 2025; seconded by Donnelly. The motion was approved unanimously with Bishop abstaining because he was not present at the previous meeting.

3. Citizen Comment Period
There were no citizen comments.

4. Citizen Complaints and Inquiries Received

• Carboni reported that the Council received an inquiry regarding “pay as you throw” (PAYT) disposal programs. He added that Council staff provided information regarding existing resources, including a link to a study for PAYT programs in the state, and information regarding a current grant opportunity for municipal and regional entities.

5. Executive Director’s Report

• Annual Report Subcommittee
  Aresta noted that Council staff will begin developing the annual report for 2025. He asked that Council members contact him if anyone would like to participate in the subcommittee.
  
  
• Applicability of farmland restoration bonds for solar projects
  Aresta noted that Public Act 25-127 expanded the requirement for a bond to cover the costs associated with the restoration of prime farmland soils for projects with a capacity over two megawatts (MW) on prime farmland soils that are approved by the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) by Petition for Declaratory Ruling (Petition). He noted that existing law already requires such bonds for projects that are approved by the CSC through a Certificate proceeding. Aresta noted that there are questions regarding the applicability, timing and value/amount of the bonding requirements. Aresta also reviewed how many proposed solar projects were exempt from the requirements of Public Act 17-218. He added that over the last three years, a little more than half of the projects were exempt from the requirements of Public Act 17-218, and generally the trend for the capacity of the projects proposed is declining.
  
  
• Preliminary assessment of Council comments for Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) general permits
  Carboni reported that Council staff completed a preliminary assessment of the Council’s comments to DEEP for four (4) general permits issued/reissued in 2024 and 2025. Carboni summarized the process used to assess if the Council’s comments were being considered by DEEP. He noted that the average for the Council’s comments for all four general permits was 0.76; however, it was based on a limited data set. Carboni added that comments that addressed specific provisions of the general permits were more often addressed compared to comments regarding more general provisions. Carboni noted that the process for assessing Council’s comments will be ongoing and that stronger conclusions might be drawn as more general permits are finalized. Rodosevich suggested that the Council might want to invite a representative(s) from DEEP to attend a future Council meeting to discuss how DEEP addresses/responds to the Council’s comments regarding provisions of general permits.

6. State Agency Actions 
a. DEEP

• Updated Forest Resource Management Plan (FMP) Cave - Black Rock Block, Mattatuck State Forest
  Aresta noted that the FMP for the Cave - Black Rock Block of the Mattatuck State Forest, which is located in Watertown and Thomaston, identifies various land management activities that would be implemented, including irregular shelterwood harvests, selection harvest, and timber stand improvements; improving existing gravel forest roads; and constructing approximately 0.4 miles of new road. He added that draft comments have been developed that address wetlands and vernal pools, core forests, and protections for state- and federally- listed species. Ainsworth noted that the potential impact on core forest, if any, would depend on the type/construction of the proposed road. Donnelly agreed and responded that there is no clarity around whether the installation of the proposed access road would impact core forest, and it would be appropriate to ask the subject matter experts to provide guidance on that topic. Rodosevich suggested refining the Council’s draft comments to include consideration of alternatives if the proposed access road could impact the core forest.
  
  
• Updated Forest Resource Management Plan Meshomasic State Forest - Mountain Block
  Aresta noted that the FMP for the Mountain Rock Block of the Meshomasic State Forest, which is located in the towns of Portland, East Hampton, Glastonbury, and Marlborough, identifies various land management activities that would be implemented, including silviculture, primarily consisting of even-aged treatments; maintaining 1,396 acres as Old Forestland Management Sites (OFMS); eradicating invasive plants; and maintaining grassland and shrubland areas to retain early successional and edge habitats. He added that draft comments have been developed that address wetlands, watercourses and vernal pools; invasive species; and protections for state- and federally- listed species. Rodosevich questioned if DEEP Forestry will coordinate with DEEP’s Wildlife Division regarding the proposed forestry practices. Donnelly responded that the FMP gets reviewed by the Wildlife Division, which might provide specific recommendations to address state-listed species. Rodosevich suggested refining the Council’s comments to include a statement supporting and encouraging the Forestry Division to coordinate with the Wildlife Division.
  
  Rodosevich made a motion to approve the Council’s draft comments regarding the FMPs, with potential refinement as discussed; seconded by Petras. The motion was approved unanimously.

b. Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) 
Comments recommended:

• Petition 1672 (energy, Portland - Glastonbury)
  Aresta reported that Council staff reviewed a proposal from Eversource to modify the 1759 115-kilovolt (“kV”) transmission line between Portland Substation in Portland to the Hopewell Substation in Glastonbury. He summarized the proposed project, which includes replacing or reinforcing certain structures and replacing the existing Copperweld shield wire. He added that draft comments have been developed that address wetlands and vernal pools, and spill prevention. 
  
  Donnelly made a motion to approve the Council’s comments regarding Petition 1672; seconded by Bowers. The motion was approved unanimously.

No comments recommended:

• Petition 1670 (telecom, New Haven)
  Carboni reported that Council staff reviewed a proposal from Verizon to install antennas and remote radio heads on the roof of an existing building in New Haven. He noted some characteristics of the proposed site and project.
  
  
• Docket 539 (telecom, Mansfield)
  Carboni reported that Council staff reviewed a proposal from Towers LLC to construct a 125-foot monopole tower in Mansfield. He noted some environmental characteristics of the proposed site and project.
  
  
• Petition 1671 (solar, Salem)
  Aresta reported that Council staff reviewed a proposal from TRITEC Energy Development, LLC to construct and operate a 1.0 MW ground-mounted solar photovoltaic facility in Salem. He noted some environmental characteristics of the proposed site and project.
  
  
• Docket 540 (telecom, New Milford)
  Carboni reported that Council staff reviewed a proposal from Towers LLC to construct and operate a 75-foot tower in New Milford. He noted some characteristics of the proposed site and project.
  
  
• Petition 1673 (telecom, Burlington)
  Carboni reported that Council staff reviewed a proposal from wireless carriers to replace an existing 180-foot monopole tower and replace it with a new monopole tower of the same height in Burlington. He noted some environmental characteristics of the proposed site and project.

c. Legislature

• Status of proposed legislation for which the Council provided testimony 
  Aresta summarized the outcome of proposed legislation for which the Council provided testimony and noted which bills became public acts.

7. Other Business 
Aresta noted that the Council’s next regular meeting is scheduled for July 23, 2025, and it will be a remote meeting.

Rodosevich noted that DEEP and the University of Connecticut (UConn) developed a Community Renewable Energy Siting Tool (CREST) that can be used to help determine if a solar facility is being appropriately sited. Aresta also noted that UConn and the Department of Public Health (DPH) developed an online tool to assess the importance of certain parcels for source water protection.

Donnelly made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 10:41 AM; seconded by Bowers. The motion was approved unanimously. The meeting was concluded.
A recording¹ of the meeting is available online and by email request of the Council (email to: CEQ@ct.gov). (Disclaimer: The transcript associated with the meeting recording is computer-generated and may contain typos that have not been edited.)

¹  _{Passcode: U#NwG%2M}