Environmental watchdog group says state needs better data
CT MIRROR
Christine Woodside
November 22, 2010

Connecticut's environmental watchdog panel says the state does not know how much open space or wildlife habitat it has and is relying on outdated data to make critical decisions about preservation or development.

The state Council on Environmental Quality, in a draft of its legislative proposals for next year, says the Department of Environmental Protection is off by tens of thousands of acres in estimates of open space totals and how far the state is toward its goal preservation goal.

The open space acreage figures are crucial to how the state distributes bonding funds to help municipalities buy land.

"The DEP's estimates of its own land are pretty accurate," said Karl Wagener, executive director of the CEQ, in an interview last week. "The DEP does have a good grip on what it owns.

But when it comes to municipal parks and preserves, non-profit-owned preserves, and land protected by land trusts and through easements, the estimates that the DEP puts out are off by tens of thousands of acres, he said.

At the hearing in Hartford on the draft proposals, several advocacy groups went on record backing the goal of creating a more complete databse. "Creating a volunteer recording system for land trusts is really vital," said Sandy Breslin, director of governmental affairs for Audubon Connecticut, the state office of National Audubon.

Breslin then asked the CEQ to add another database idea to its report: "We call for a statewide natural resources inventory." She said after the hearing that when it comes out during hearings for a developer's proposal that the land involved, for instance, is habitat for a rare bird, there is no time for officials to react.

There are state databases of habitats for endangered and "special concern" species, but not for a wide range of species and areas, Breslin said. That makes it very hard for officials in small towns to know what they are dealing with when a development proposal comes in.

The DEP established five years ago that Connecticut has 12 threatened wildlife habitats. More than half of those include wet areas like marshes and bogs. The DEP also made a list of 25 threats to the key habitats.

"If you're trying to build a highway site, or a wind project, how do you do it without destroying habitat?" Breslin  said. "It usually comes up at a time when the clock is ticking. We have pockets of that information, but we don't have the depth of information."

Similarly, the state doesn't have a good handle on preserved land, Wagener said. When Gov. M. Jodi Rell announced the release of $10.4 million in new state grants to help cities and towns buy open space, she put the amount preserved so far at 488,822 acres--well short of the goal of 673,210 acres be 2023.

Wagener said that figure, based on DEP data, probably underestimates the amount of preserved open space by a significant amount because it doesn't include some preserved acreage not owned by the state.

About a decade ago, the DEP started going to town halls, one by one, to improve the calculation of open space totals. That project, known as POSM for Protected Open Space Mapping, has included newer protected acreages from 148 out of 169 towns as of last summer.

CEQ reviewed some of that data last year and concluded it did not accurately reflect the total amount of preserved land, Wagener said.

"When it's done it will be out of date," he said. "We'll have better numbers than we have now, but what we need is some sort of simple system," which would allow continuous adding of land acquisition to a central list.

He added, "We used to use those figures in our own report on the state's environment, but if you go to our annual report for the past year you'll see we quit reporting on how much we have preserved."

The DEP acknowledged that habitat databases could improve and that accurate information is "critical to protecting natural resources today and in planning for the future," said Dennis Schain, the department's spokesman.

He added, "DEP has been working to improve our databases and the availability of information on both of these topics. We are also interested in ideas others may have on how to best capture and make available in the most useful form information on open space and listed species."

Despite the confusion about how much open space is actually preserved in the state, the CEQ said open space preservation efforts still are behind schedule. It recommends in the report that the state act more quickly to buy land. They suggest $20 million next year to help towns buy open space of about 11,000 per year.

The CEQ's draft proposals also include:

    * State bonding of $130 million to continue improving water quality in Long Island Sound, which has a large dead zone at its western end in the summer.
    * Farmland preservation funds of $10 million so that the state can help farmers keep their farms by paying them to declare the land farmland, never to be sold. The CEQ says the state should preserve 2,000 farm acres each year in this way. Last year the total was 1,400 acres, which was double the previous year.
    * A state clean up contaminated drinking water wells, consolidating drinking water programs in one agency and use federal Superfund dollars.
    * Allowing owners of smaller tracts of land (under 25 acres) to declare it wildlife habitat and get a lower tax rate.
    * Requiring drivers of all-terrain vehicles and dirt bikes to register them with the state.
    * Amending a state statute to require that everyone who could see a proposed cell tower from their homes be given notice of the proposal.
    * A ban on outdoor wood furnaces.
    * Requiring better training for volunteer wetlands board members in towns.

Environmentalists To Sue Five Polluters; Connecticut Fund To Take Federal Action After Courant Report On Firms' Discharges
By JOSH KOVNER And REGINE LABOSSIERE | Courant Staff Writers
September 12, 2007
 
Citing a lack of enforcement by state regulators, an environmental group said Tuesday it intends to sue five companies for illegally releasing chemical toxins into four Connecticut rivers.

The action by the Connecticut Fund for the Environment followed a Courant special report Sunday on the state's major chemical dischargers - the 35 firms with state permits to release toxin-laden wastewater directly into Connecticut waters.

The Connecticut Fund is pursuing five firms - Electric Boat of Groton (Thames River); Whyco Finishing Technologies LLC of Thomaston (Naugatuck River); Allegheny Ludlum of Wallingford (Quinnipiac River); Atlantic Wire of Branford (Branford River); and Cytec Industries of Wallingford (Quinnipiac River.).

The New Haven-based environmental advocacy group notified the companies that it intends to file lawsuits under the federal Clean Water Act for what it says were ongoing and serious chemical releases beyond permit limits. The toxins include heavy metals, cyanide, ammonia, nitrogen and plastics.

Representatives from Atlantic Wire, Whyco, Electric Boat, and Allegheny Ludlum could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

Larry Stauffer, Cytek's site manager in Wallingford, said his company "is committed to meeting all of the obligations of its permits," and that the company "works diligently to adhere to all state and federal standards."

He said the company would review the Connecticut Fund's claims.

"We respect their right to ask questions," he said.

The Connecticut Fund reviewed recent monthly discharge records filed with the DEP, as well as the results of DEP tests of chemical samples taken from the discharges of the companies.  The firms have 60 days to cease the alleged violations before the Connecticut Fund can sue in federal court.

In one case, Roger Reynolds, the Connecticut Fund's senior staff lawyer, said Tuesday that the group received reports "of a crab kill last week in Branford Harbor that appears to have coincided with an extended release of extremely acidic effluent from Atlantic Wire Co."

Reynolds said the other violations involve dozens of instances in which the companies exceeded the limits on their chemical discharge permits.

"These are repeated, chronic violations, with no pending enforcement actions by the DEP. We encourage and welcome the DEP to file its own actions, or join with ours, as has happened in the past," Reynolds said.

DEP officials told The Courant for Sunday's story that they are investigating several of the major chemical dischargers, including Whyco and one other firm that the Connecticut Fund is now pursuing.  DEP spokesman Dennis Schain said Tuesday that while the DEP has made progress in cleaning up the state's waterways, the agency needs help in monitoring water quality.

"The 'citizen' lawsuit provisions of the Clean Water Act being exercised here provide an additional means of oversight. [The Connecticut Fund's] action sends a message to all companies that they should remain in compliance with laws governing water discharges and make a real commitment to ending any violations," Schain said.

He said the Connecticut Fund's action "will hopefully contribute to the settlement of any outstanding issues that remain with the five companies that have been named. DEP has been engaged in enforcement actions with some of these companies but we need to compare [Connecticut Fund] claims with our records to determine if all of them have in fact been out of compliance with permit conditions," Schain said.

The Courant's "Toxic 7" list of chronic violators were Electric Boat, Allegheny Ludlum, Whyco, and Quality Rolling & Deburring of Thomaston (Naugatuck River), Chromium Process Co. of Shelton (Housatonic River); Pharmacia & Upjohn LLC of North Haven (Quinnipiac River); and Seidel Inc. of Waterbury (Naugatuck River). These firms were repeatedly in "significant noncompliance" with their permits from 2003 to 2006, according to data filed with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The Courant also found that 17 of the 35 companies are dumping chemicals under permit limits that have expired. Companies can operate under expired permits until the licenses are renewed but in some cases they are discharging at higher levels than would be allowed under updated permits.

In a letter to the society, Blumenthal asked that the sale of the property be delayed while his office investigates whether it is in agreement with Haagenson's wishes.  The society complied, but Blumenthal said the organization has a private buyer interested in the bulk of the land.

"We have very strong doubts about whether the proposed sale is appropriate," Blumenthal said Friday.

In August 2004, the Connecticut Audubon Society placed the Haagenson preserve, one of its 19 sanctuaries, up for sale for $775,000.  A local coalition formed to fight the sale, the Friends of Harlo Haagenson Preserve, says selling the land would tarnish Haagenson's memory and contradict his wish that the society hold and maintain the land in perpetuity.

"Certainly [the Connecticut Audubon Society] has a moral and possibly a legal obligation to make sure the donor's intent is fulfilled," Blumenthal said.

Haagenson donated the parcel, estimated to be between 57 and 64 acres, to the society in 1989. The land sits on the upward slope of the watershed where the Salmon River and the Connecticut River meet. It is filled with diverse flora and fauna and panoramic views.  According to Robert Martinez, the president of Connecticut Audubon Society, the deed for the land did not come with any permanent restrictions on the land's use.

But financial statements filed by Connecticut Audubon Society on April, 30, 2004, the most recent records available, list the Haagenson land as a "permanently restricted net asset."

According to the society, such an asset is defined as those "whose use by the organization is limited by donor-imposed stipulations that neither expire by passage of time nor can be fulfilled or otherwise removed by actions of the organization."

Earlier this month, Blumenthal sent a letter to Martinez asking him "to postpone any contemplated transfer of the Haagenson Nature Preserve until my office has an opportunity to assess whether any restrictions might affect the conveyance."

Recently discovered letters between the two attorneys who negotiated the 1989 sale of the land prompted Blumenthal's intervention.

"These documents raise the issue of whether the property was donated subject to a charitable use that limits the Connecticut Audubon Society's authority to convey the land for any purpose other than a wildlife sanctuary," Blumenthal said. According to the letters, the attorneys agreed that two small lots on the land may be sold, but only to help defray the cost of maintaining the preserve.

In June, Connecticut Audubon Society gave the coalition an opportunity to buy the land for $500,000.

The coalition turned down the offer, instead offering to pay for all the society's expenses relating to the land to date in exchange for the transfer of the property's deed to a conservation organization.

The Connecticut Audubon Society declined.