Notice of Opportunity for Public Comment on NDDB Study Recommendations and Scope of NDDB Mapping Modernization Project

This Notice seeks public input on steps the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) is considering taking to strengthen and improve implementation of the Natural Diversity Data Base program.

Introduction

The Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB) program, administered by DEEP, supports planning, regulatory review, research, and land management to conserve native biodiversity in accordance with the Connecticut Endangered Species Act (CT ESA). The program identifies, documents, and protects rare plants, animals, and their habitats and maintains a centralized database of state-listed endangered, threatened, and special concern species. This information guides conservation actions and supports the review of proposed projects requiring DEEP permits, therefore playing a critical role in protecting rare and endangered species in Connecticut.

DEEP is committed to improving the transparency, predictability, and efficiency of permitting and environmental review processes, as a means to achieve better environmental outcomes and support economic development.  The Department’s 20BY26 Initiative includes a goal (Goal 17) of increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the NDDB process.  Additionally, in 2025, Governor Lamont introduced legislation, now codified in Public Act 25-84, directing DEEP to conduct a study of best practices and make recommendations to improve the NDDB project review process.  The NDDB Study to Improve the Environmental Review Process, conducted by D.J. Case & Associates, considered staff input, stakeholder surveys, and a survey of best practices from other states that conduct similar reviews to identify opportunities for improvement.  DEEP released the study publicly on March 30, 2026, and held a public listening session on April 24, 2026 to introduce the study findings, as well as the following ten key recommendations from the report:

1. Invest in Mapping: Conduct comprehensive mapping and improve alignment among maps and tools to shorten review times and reduce the need for applicant field surveys (efficiency), clarify decision-making (transparency), and make outcomes easier to anticipate (predictability).
2. Prioritize Early Consultation: Establish a clearly defined but informal pre-application consultation process for large, complex projects to provide greater clarity (transparency), increase certainty (predictability), and shorten formal review times (efficiency). Consistent early consultation would be more feasible with comprehensive mapping data and would likely require additional staff.
3. Streamline Additional Reviews for Recurrent Activities: Further simplify review processes for recurring work conducted by transportation departments and utility companies to make reviews faster (efficiency) and outcomes easier to anticipate (predictability), while minimizing adverse conservation impacts. Initial implementation would require staff time but could ultimately free up staff resources.
4. Improve the Applicant Survey System: Reduce the frequency of required applicant surveys, assist applicants in identifying qualified experts, and establish pathways for consultants to become eligible to survey specific taxa. These changes could clarify requirements (transparency), create clearer paths forward (predictability), and save time and effort over the long term (efficiency).
5. Increase Staff Capacity: Expand overall staffing levels and add specialized expertise to support implementation of multiple improvements identified by both staff and program users.
6. Make ezFile Easy: Modernize the ezFile system or provide additional technical support staff to improve the user experience, particularly for new users, and enable more effective use of staff resources.
7. Set Initial Response Timelines: Establish timelines for initial responses to provide applicants and the regulated community with greater predictability, even if overall review processes cannot be completed within a fixed timeframe.
8. Adjust Validity Durations: Extend the validity periods for preliminary and final determinations to make review and permitting processes more practical and manageable for applicants.
9. Enhance Communication and Information Resources: Improve the website, develop guidance documents, and reorganize response letters to provide greater clarity and support, especially for newer users.
10. Explore Mitigation Banking: Develop a mitigation banking system to provide staff and applicants with additional options for addressing impacts to particular species and project types.

Improvements to mapping tools was the topline recommendation in the report and is a foundational investment that can simultaneously advance conservation outcomes and improve project review efficiency. The Study found that proactively mapping habitats and species could reduce the need for applicants to conduct field surveys, shortening environmental review timelines and increasing predictability for project planners. At the same time, more accurate and up-to-date statewide habitat and species occurrence data would strengthen conservation decision-making by supporting land conservation prioritization, municipal planning, habitat restoration, climate resilience efforts, and long-term biodiversity protection. By providing a stronger shared information base, enhanced mapping would deliver both conservation and permitting benefits.

DEEP is interested in taking next steps to invest in mapping as recommended by the Study.  Specifically, DEEP is planning, over the second half of 2026, to develop a scope of work for this project.  DEEP is pleased that in the 2026 Legislative Session, the General Assembly recognized the potential transformative impact of proactive mapping when it included in P.A. 26-68 a $5 million bond authorization for NDDB in fiscal year 2027 for mapping enhancements and other information technology resources to streamline DEEP’s permitting and environmental review processes.

DEEP is now seeking preliminary input from the public to inform the approach DEEP should take on this effort. DEEP also will seek additional feedback later this year when it releases a draft request for proposals to conduct this work.

Request for Comment

By this Notice, DEEP is now seeking public input to inform next steps the Department should take to implement improvements to the NDDB Program.  Specifically, DEEP invites responses to the following questions:

Questions Related to the D.J. Case Study:

1. What recommendations from the D.J. Case Study should DEEP seek to implement?  Are there any recommendations that should be prioritized above others?  If so, please explain why. 

2. Are there any recommendations from the Study that DEEP should not seek to implement? If so, please explain why.

3. Are there any recommendations that were not included in the Study, that DEEP should also consider implementing?

Questions Related to the Mapping Modernization Project:

4. What conservation outcomes should DEEP be trying to achieve as part of the mapping modernization project?

5. What efficiency and streamlining outcomes should DEEP be trying to achieve as part of the mapping modernization project?

6. Other states have developed online mapping tools that support conservation planning, environmental review, municipal planning, and public access to natural resource information. What features, tools, or capabilities would you like to see included in Connecticut's future mapping system? Examples of mapping products from other states include:

• Arizona: Environmental Review Tool
• Georgia: Georgia’s Natural, Archaeological, and Historic Resources GIS:
• Massachusetts: BioMap:
  • BioMap Hub
  • Priority & Estimated Habitats
• New Jersey:  NJDEP| Fish & Wildlife | New Jersey's Landscape Project
• New York: Environmental Assessment Form mapping tool:
• Ohio: Division of Wildlife Pre-Planning Environmental Assessment Tool
• Oregon:
  • Oregon Biodiversity Information Center
  • Compass: Mapping Oregon's Fish and Wildlife Habitats
• Pennsylvania:
  • PA Conservation Explorer
  • Environmental Review | PA Conservation Explorer
• Virginia: Fish and Wildlife Information Service

7. Are there particular habitats, ecosystems, species groups, natural communities, or geographic areas that DEEP should prioritize for the mapping project?

Other

8. Is there anything else that DEEP should be aware of or consider as part of this initiative?

Comments should be submitted to DEEP via this entry form by 5:00 p.m. on July 24, 2026. All comments submitted by stakeholders will be posted on the DEEP website. Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to DEEP.wildlife@ct.gov.