Wesleyan’s Long Lane pond plan draws resident concerns over soil relocation and wildlife handling; hearing continued to June 4

WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY, Middletown — Residents pressed for more data on Thursday as consultants for Wesleyan University presented a remediation and stream‑restoration plan that would remove a man‑made pond at 170 Long Lane, relocate pesticide‑impacted soils on‑site beneath a regulated clean‑soil cover and restore a natural channel.

At a continuation of a public hearing before the Middletown Inland Wetland and Watercourse Agency, Lisa Alyecho of HRP Associates said the project is designed under the Connecticut Transfer Act and the Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations (RSR). Alyecho said the remedial action plan approved by Connecticut DEEP in January calls for excavation of contaminated sediments, removal and off‑site disposal of coal ash from the dam, on‑site relocation of pesticide‑impacted soils to areas with similar contaminant concentrations, and placement of a compliant soil cover to prevent exposure.

"We are not creating a landfill," Alyecho said, asking the commission and public to note that the plan reuses soils in areas already impacted to avoid large off‑site disposal and that the remedial approach was reviewed by DEEP. "The compliance soil cover will prevent direct contact with pesticide‑impacted soils and will protect human health and wildlife," she said.

Why it matters

The Long Lane site has been under remediation for years. Neighbors said they want remediation completed but pressed the applicant and consultants for specifics about arsenic, testing procedures, trucking impacts, where contaminated soil would be placed, and how wildlife would be handled during dewatering and excavation.

What consultants said

James McManus, a certified professional soil scientist with JMM Wetland Consulting Services, described a delineation and functional assessment of the wetland system and said the on‑site stream is perennial and that much of the immediate pond area is disturbed. He said the team expects construction‑period controls and a planting plan to reduce long‑term hydrologic and water‑quality impacts and likely improve wetland function.

Dennis Quinn, principal herpetologist at Quinn Ecological, said a March 19 survey found no vernal‑pool obligate species at the pond; common species detected included green frogs, bullfrogs, painted turtles and snapping turtles. Quinn described a species‑protection protocol: exclusion fencing during dewatering, on‑site relocation of amphibians where feasible and capture and relocation of turtles to a suitable state‑coordinated site. He said amphibians showing contagious disease (he cited ranavirus) would be euthanized rather than relocated to avoid spreading pathogens to healthy populations.

"If animals are infected, I would recommend euthanasia for infected amphibians so we do not contaminate another area," Quinn said.

Residents’ concerns and consultant responses

John Ruh, a nearby resident, asked whether contaminated fill from a Wesleyan science‑building project could be used as controlled backfill elsewhere rather than placing contamination near the pond. Alyecho replied that state reuse regulations allow relocation only where contaminants and concentrations are similar; the science‑building area is in a different groundwater classification and therefore not an acceptable relocation site under DEEP reuse rules.

Jackie Gardell asked the board to identify the specific DEEP regulation that permits on‑site relocation and questioned the life expectancy of a soil cap, the handling of arsenic, and the plan to test animals before release. Alyecho offered to supply the regulatory citations and additional testing data to the commission and public; she said HRP would provide direct links or documents if the DEEP public portal is difficult to use.

On arsenic testing, HRP said the soils sampled for relocation were tested for arsenic and other pesticides and that levels in the soils to be moved were below Connecticut standards used for this project; an HRP staff member read a result as "less than 0.015 parts per million" for soils proposed to be relocated.

Process and next steps

Commissioners asked for clarifications on the amount of soil to be relocated and covered (HRP estimated roughly 5,800 cubic yards of contaminated soil to be placed with a larger volume of clean cover and engineering fill), the future of a roughly 25,000‑cubic‑yard onsite stockpile (Wesleyan representatives said they plan to grade and stabilize it and may reuse some material on campus), and schedule impacts; the applicant said bids were out to contractors on May 1 and a June 4 continuance would not delay the planned August dewatering window.

The agency closed the public hearing and voted to continue deliberation and any formal decision to its June 4 meeting so staff can prepare findings, stipulations and the applicant can provide additional requested documentation. The applicant agreed to return and said the schedule would accommodate the continuance.

What the commission will review in June

The commission and staff said they will prepare a draft motion with findings of fact and proposed stipulations that reflect testimony from the soil scientist, herpetologist and engineers. The commission emphasized it wants a record that would be defensible on appeal and that would include detailed erosion‑control, monitoring and wildlife‑handling protocols.

Authorities and documentation

The project team repeatedly referenced the Connecticut Transfer Act and the Connecticut Remediation Standard Regulations (DEEP) and said the approved remedial action plan and appended testing data are part of the administrative record; HRP agreed to provide direct links or project files to commissioners and members of the public.

The agency is scheduled to consider the matter again on June 4.