From State and Local Leaders—

Military Base Plan Draws Environmental Concerns

By John Voket

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal expanded his focus on the US Army’s efforts to possibly develop on an environmentally sensitive Middletown site to include parcels under consideration for a similar training facility in Newtown.

In formal comments filed with the US Army Corps of Engineers December 10, the attorney general said the US Army Reserve Training Center proposed for Middletown cannot be built on any other environmentally sensitive site without permission from state environmental officials.

Shortly after issuing that statement, Mr Blumenthal told The Bee that he would extend his comments to incorporate sites the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission (BRAC) is considering in Newtown.

Three parcels in Newtown remain under similar consideration for a regional training and maintenance facility, which would accommodate centralizing numerous Connecticut National Guard and Army Reserve posts throughout the western part of the state.

Those proposed sites include passive open space on the high or east meadow areas at Fairfield Hills, and a parcel that is currently a local economic development zone between Commerce Road and Wasserman Way known as the “Tech Park.”

James Belden, a local Planning & Zoning alternate and regional president of Trout Unlimited who is also vice chair of that organization’s state council, said all three sites under current consideration would either fully or partially compromise one of only two parcels in Connecticut considered a federal Environmental Protection Agency sole source aquifer.

The attorney general said a full and public environmental review must be conducted on any site before a training facility can be considered — but no facility can be built without approval of the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) if it contains sensitive wetlands or other historic considerations.

“We’re sending a message to the US Army Corps of Engineers that it must not only follow federal law, but also seek permission from our state environmental agency before it can build anything [on any sensitive area],” the attorney general said in a release. He said the military has neither acknowledged the need for a state permit, nor applied for one for its site of preference in Middletown.

“I have repeatedly warned the Corps that it seems to be disregarding this key legal requirement, but it seems to be heedless to this concern,” the attorney general added.

Mr Blumenthal said the federal Clean Water Act, which with the Corps is fully obligated to comply requires a permit if a project threatens designated wetlands. The National Environmental Policy Act also mandates – and the Corps has fully acknowledged – that federal agencies involved in activities that may have significant impact on the environment must complete a detailed statement of the environmental impacts and project alternatives.

Mr Blumenthal said armed services members deserve the best training facilities possible, but not “at the irreversible expense of the environment.” He said the Corps has apparently not examined alternatives to its preferred site, or properly evaluated known environmental conditions as required by federal law.

“It is both illogical and illegal to pre-select a preferred site without having done even the most minimal examinations under the National Environmental Policy Act,” he said. “The Corps of Engineers, as it has acknowledged, is bound by the strict mandates of the National Environmental Policy Act to provide a full and public assessment of the environmental impacts of the construction of this project at the various locations under consideration.”

Mr Blumenthal said in particular, such an environmental review must include an analysis of all reasonable alternatives. Predetermined analyses favoring a selected site are flatly unacceptable and would fail to meet the terms of federal law.

While it may not conform to preliminary desires to develop a Newtown site in direct proximity to existing military facilities at Fairfield Hills, several officials have expressed a desire to shift the military’s focus locally to an active brownfield site in the southeastern part of town known as the Batchelder property.

Since the Army has a duty to consider environmentally preferable sites, Mr Blumenthal suggested the option of bringing in the Army to remediate a brownfield site for productive purposes in Newtown would be a “historic opportunity” for the community.

The issue of a possible military installation was discussed at length December 3 during a local Legislative Council meeting as well. During that meeting Councilman Jeffrey Capeci agreed that the Batchelder property should be presented to military representatives as a preferred site for such a development.

Council Chair Will Rodgers said he has served in the military for 30 years, and has done environmental work in that capacity. But based on his experience, he could not endorse the development of a military facility at any of the three current sites because of their environmental sensitivity.

“I never saw the military conform to predetermined borders. And I have never seen the military act in an environmentally sensitive way,” Mr Rodgers said. “I am very uncomfortable with the idea of the military building on an aquifer.”