Carmans River '13

The 9/29/13 updates are at the end of this page and highlighted like this sentence.

CARMANS RIVER PLAN PAGES ON EMPOAweb:

What's happened, '13

Draft Plan, 7/13

Draft Plan, 6/13

Other '13 docs

Later'13 docs (incl. 9/13 Plan & FGEIS)

What happened, '10 to '12

DGEIS Resources, 3/12

Docs, '10 to '12

To view documents referenced, click on links in text below .

This year's proposal to protect the Carmans River emerged in late May when there was a report of a proposal being presented by the Town's Planning Department to the Town's Open Space Advisory Committee. Shortly afterward, EMPOA obtained the copy of the draft plan that is on this website (it is described below).

At its June 4 meeting, the Town Board heard a report on the draft plan from the Planning Commissioner, and also scheduled a July 30 hearing on the proposed plan and the draft environmental impact statement. It also approved a home rule message to the State Legislature in which it approved legislation to enlarge the Pine Barrens within the Carmans River watershed (more on this below). The legislation was approved by the Legislature and was signed by the Governor on 7/31/13.

"Acceptance" of the New Proposed Plan, July 2, 2013

On 7/2/13 the Town Board "accepted" a new draft of the Plan and a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS); they are discussed below. This started a 30 day period during which (as provided in the State Environmental Quality Review Act) anyone may submitted written comments on the proposal. The Town is required, under SEQRA, to respond to all comments submitted during this period in its Final GEIS. The comment period has been extended to 8/21/13.

Referral to County Planning Commission Withdrawn, July 3, 2013

Apparently in early June the Town referred the then-current draft Plan to the Suffolk County Planning Commission for review and approval. The referral appeared on the Commission's July 3 agenda. At the meeting, the Town's Planning Commissioner made an informal presentation of the proposals early in the meeting. Two Brookhaven residents spoke against approval, one urging that the referral be withdrawn or not be considered because the plan was still a draft and undergoing change. When the referral was called, the Commission's chairman announced that the referral was being withdrawn and that the Town had said it would resubmit the plan once it was in final form.

Information Sessions, June & July, 2013

Six information sessions, all arranged by the Affiliated Brookhaven Civic Organizations (ABCO), were held in each council district. Town planning personnel explained the proposed plan, responded to questions and took suggestions from the public. On July 25, an information session was held at Town Hall. ABCO videographed these sessions and has made them viewable on "ABCO TV". Links in the table below will take you directly to each video.

Public Hearing

On July 30, the Town Board held a public hearing on adoption of the proposed plan and the DGEIS. EMPOA submitted a letter asking for changes to the plan and objected to the insufficiency of the DGEIS. Many residents spoke. The general sentiment was in favor of a plan, but most speakers urged improvements. The hearing can be viewed on ABCO TV (the links are in the table above). Or you can read the transcript (View Download).

The Board closed the hearing but took no other action except that it allowed written comments to be submitted on or before 8/21/13.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The June '13 and the current drafts of the Plan are discussed separately below.

The June '13 Draft Plan

The June draft plan includes large segments taken from the 2012 proposal--the initial chapters on the history of the river and prior plans to help it and on the watershed's environmental conditions. What is new is Chapter 5, the Recommendations.

The draft plan has 18 specific recommendations. Of them, 14 are largely hortatory in nature; they say that the Town, County, State or some other government or agency "should" take some action, consider some idea, use some policy or do some monitoring or reporting. A few concrete recommendations are within them, but not ones with potentially major impact. It is only with enough follow-through--which may be implied but is not part of the draft plan--that these recommendations will result in further protection of the river. They pertain to (with draft plan's recommendation numbers):

6. Watershed Protection Improvement District

7. Protection of natural resources*

8. Stormwater and flooding

9. Sanitary Systems and Sewage Treatment Plants**

10. Water quality goal for the Carmans River

11. Water quality monitoring program

12. Biological inventories and monitoring

13. Invasive species***

14. Restoration of degraded properties

15. Surface and groundwater remediation

16. Mitigate barriers to fish migration

17. Public education and outreach

18. Agricultural and Golf Course Management

19. Management Plan Implementation

20. Carmans River Management Plan Performance Committee ****

*     A specific recommendation is within #6, restricting construction near waterways, but it is limited to land within 20' of the waterway or wetland.

**    Recommendation 9.E regarding a 2.5 mg/l at the property line standard for developments of regional significance is discussed below.

***   Eradication of invasive species in Upper and Lower Lakes in Yaphank does involve concrete actions, but they are part of a separate project, and so are not addressed here.

**** A committee is to be established and is to report, but it cannot do anything but report or trigger any action.  There's more discussion of the committee below.

The first 4 recommendations, described below, have teeth.

1. Carmans River Management Plan Area.

The area around the river that contributes ground water to it has been mapped, and the areas whose ground water goes into the river within 0 to 2, and 2 to 5 years have been defined and mapped. These areas, plus a few outlying areas that affect the river area itself constitute the management area. The 0 to 2 and 2 to 5 contributing areas can be seen in draft plan Figure 4a.

2. Pine Barrens Expansion Area.

a. The Expansion Areas.

The protected area called the Pine Barrens has two type of protection. Land designated as "Core" has the most protection, and it generally may not be developed without meeting stringent requirements. Land within the "Compatible Growth Area" (CGA) of the Pine Barrens--usually land on the edges of the Pine Barrens--is subject to development restrictions greater than those the Town imposes under its non-Pine Barrens regulations. To see the 102,500 acres now within the Pine Barrens, view a map of it.

The effect of expanding the Pine Barrens near the river is to immediately subject the included land in the development restrictions for the Core and the CGA.

The draft plan proposes expansion of both the Core and the CGA near the Carmans River. The Core expansion area is described in the draft plan as:

"1. Properties within the 0 to 2 and 2 to 5 year groundwater time of travel contributing area, except for those in areas of the Management Plan Area that are predominately developed.

"2. Publicly owned properties that have been acquired since the Core Preservation Area boundaries were originally established in 1993.

"3. The land area includes approximately 1,660 acres of land and includes 587 parcels of land.

"4. An exemption to the boundary expansion includes the parcel known as the Dorade Sewage Treatment Plant."

The CGA expansion area is described this way:

"1. Properties within the 0 to 2 and 2 to 5 year groundwater time of travel contributing area south of the Long Island Expressway, State Route 495, between Yaphank Avenue and William Floyd Parkway.

"2. The land area includes approximately 2,215 acres of land consisting of 2,942 parcels of land.

"3. An exemption to the boundary expansion includes the project known as RB Industrial Park, showing a latest revision date of 01-06-09. This approved and filed subdivision and site plan was designed to comply with the current Pine Barrens Standards including: dedicated natural areas, clustering and limitations on fertilized landscaped areas."

The existing and expansion areas of the Pine Barrens can be viewed graphically in draft plan Figure 27. (Like most of the maps attached to the draft plan it is hard to read. The Town's Planning Department reportedly uses the same maps.)

b. State Legislation

The State Assembly and Senate passed legislation to include the proposed expansion areas in the Pine Barrens on June 18 and 20. The bill awaits the Governor's signature. Upon his approval, the added land will immediately be subject to the Pine Barrens development restrictions.

c. The Price To Be Paid: Pine Barrens Credits.

The right of an owner to develop his or her land cannot be taken away without something being given in return. Pine Barrens credits (PBC's) are available to owners of land in the Core as compensation. When issued, the PBC can be used elsewhere in Brookhaven to build on land outside the Core at a density higher than otherwise would be permitted by the Town Code. Roughly speaking, a credit is worth an additional 1 residential unit. They may also be used to increase the allowed sanitary outflow of a commercial property. A landowner whose property is put into the Core may use the credit himself or may sell it to someone else. In Brookhaven, credits are said to be worth about $80,000 currently.

Under the Pine Barrens law and plan, Brookhaven is required to provide areas where credits may be used, called "receiving areas". Current information is that expanding the Core as proposed would result in up to an additional 140 credits that must have receiving sites in Brookhaven. There are already about 540 unredeemed credits that must have a place to be used in Brookhaven. So it does not give a full picture when it is said that there are no receiving areas or TDR's in the draft plan.

Credits may be used up in Brookhaven in the following ways.

1. To increase density in the following zoning districts:

a. Residential Overlay District. This includes any parcel zoned A-1 or A-2 which is not in the Core. An increase of about 20% is allowed. For each unit above the number of units allowed under A-1 or A-2 zoning, 1 Pine Barren credit must be redeemed.

b. Planned Development District. This is a floating district that the Town Board may locate anywhere on application. It has flexibility as to the density to be allowed. Pine Barrens credits are one means of "paying for" the additional density allowed.

c. Multi-family District. In existing or newly approved MF Districts, the Town Board may allow density above what was permitted before the change of zone up to maximum of in "primary zones" or in "secondary zones". The developer must redeem 1 Pine Barren Credit for every 5 additional units. (he new code is here.)

2. To increase the allowed sanitary flow from commercial properties by up to 20 % with the approval of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services.

3. By purchase of the property put into the Core before credits for it have been issued and sold by the owner. A municipal entity is not entitled to credits.

The Town has not shown how the new credits will be used up. Representatives have said that some parcels going into the Core will be bought by the Town--which is strapped for cash. At the June 18 Town Board meeting, however, the Board found $2 million and designated it for acquisition within the watershed. At the June 20 informational meeting on the plan, Town representatives said that the ways the additional credits will be used will be discussed in the draft generic environmental impact statement to be released after the July 2 Town Board meeting.

3. Proposed Open Space and Farmland Development Rights Acquisitions.

The draft plan proposes that the Town purchase development rights on 2 named farms and to purchase a significant amount of acreage outright. The parcels proposed for acquisition are shown on a draft plan Figure 28. Most appear to be undeveloped. By comparison with the Pine Barrens expansion map, it looks like most of the parcels proposed for acquisition are in the existing or expanded CGA.

Neither the total number of acres nor the aggregate expected cost of the acquisitions is given. That make it difficult to assess the impact of the proposed acquisition program and the rest of Town. Given the Town's shortage of funds, there has to be an impact on the rest of Town. The recently enacted land use intensification mitigation fee should be of help in this regard. It imposes a fee when the town Board approves a downzoning; the fee is based on the acreage of the downzoned parcel and the degree of downzoning (based on a formula).

4. Proposed Zoning Actions in the Management Plan Area

To reduce the amount sewage and other pollutants going into ground water, the draft plan proposed reduced density is proposed for the management area. 12,000 acres are to be rezoned A-2 within the 0 to 5 year contributing area. Draft plan Figure 28 shows the specific parcels to be rezoned A-2.

In addition, 1,500 acres of publicly owned land is to upzoned to A-5. Depending on the owner, this may not have an immediate impact, but 5-acre zoning would be in place if the public entity sold the land to a private party. There is also a reference to rezoning 600 acres A-10, but the explanation of this change is missing.

A good part of the 12,000 acres to be re-zoned A-2 is already developed. The degree of impact this proposal will have will be affected by existing lot size. Rezoning will not increase 1 acre lots to 2 acres, although it will impact further development of the lots.

There are 2 ways around the proposed rezoning could be circumvented, even if enacted. First by the Board of Zoning Appeals granting a variance. Second, by a court settlement of litigation involving the property. The draft plan makes no proposal that would meaningfully reduce the risks of either the ZBA or a court settlement upsetting what the draft plan proposes.

Two other significant issues within the draft plan should be mentioned.

A. Water Quality Standard

Actually, there are several standards to look at. First, the standard for the river itself. The draft plan says "[t]he purpose of the [plan] is to ensure non-degradation of the current water quality of the Carmans River" (at 183). Some have argued that the goal is too limited and that the goal should be to improve the water quality of the river. In fact, at the June 20 informational meeting, Town representatives said that this is going to be addressed in the next draft.

Second, since sewage discharge in the watershed, even after treatment, affects the quality of water in the river, how should it be limited? The draft plan mentions "the 2.5mg/l nitrate standard recommended for new development" and that "the nitrate-nitrogen standard should be 2.5 mg/l of nitrate at the property lines", referring respectively to residential properties and Developments of Regional Significance (at 177, 183).

At the June 20 presentation on the draft plan, a Town representative said that the 2.5 mg/l standard came from a 1978 study, The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan ("208 Study"). There was no mention of the possible updating of this standard.

B. Plan Implementation

It will take time for the many recommendations in the draft plan to be implemented. The hortatory recommendations in particular might easily get lost. There is no mechanism for systematic follow-up. Even the Carmans River Management Plan Performance Committee is to report on the effectiveness of the plan and certain specific topics. The Committee is not asked to make a check list of all the recommendations, and state the status of each.

The July '13 Draft Plan & DGEIS

There are some changes from the June draft, but not a lot. A few changes appear in parts other than Chapter 5, but they are largely refinements or clean-ups. Chapter 5, Recommendations, has many changes--but again they are largely refinements or clean-ups. A Microsoft Word comparison of the drafts shows what was inserted, deleted or moved within Chapter 5.

The first draft released of the DGEIS is discussed below. But first the Plan.

These are the principle changes we have found:

1. Pine Barrens expansion area acquisitions. This recommendation was added: "The fee simple acquisition of lands is the principal protection measure. Establish a goal of credit redemption of 75% acquisition of the lands within the Core Preservation Area" (at 173). This is a worthwhile goal, but the draft plan does not present any way of achieving it in the foreseeable future, given the Town's financial condition.
2. Other acquisitions. The open space acquisition recommendations now include a prioritization procedure (Appendix D) using points for desirable characteristics (at 174-75).
3. Rezoning litigated parcels. Prior text in the Rezoning recommendation was modified so it now reads:

"Parcels subject to previous legal settlements and stipulations deriving from litigation shall not be subject to the provisions and recommendations contained herein" (at 175).

This is an improvement over the prior text because "previous" was inserted. But the parcels subject to litigation are not listed, and the "previous legal settlement and stipulations" and pending litigation is still not described.

1. Sewage treatment. This topic has gotten more attention and the following recommendations have been added:

"C. Rebate programs to assist homeowners in financing on-site sanitary system upgrades has been successfully implemented in a number of local communities throughout the country. The Town of Southampton, for example, has just completed such a successful program involving system upgrades. The Town and /or Suffolk County should strongly consider establishing a program to provide funding to homeowners to incentivize the upgrading of antiquated and obsolete on-site sanitary systems.

"D. The Town should investigate the technical and financial feasibility of utilizing reclaimed wastewater from STP’s located within the Carmans River Study Area for golf course and landscape irrigation purposes, thereby reducing the loading of nitrogen to groundwater originating from STP’s. There are many examples throughout the country that promote the reuse of treated wastewater emanating from sewage treatment plants (STP). Golf course and landscape irrigation are especially common targets for reclaimed wastewater. Article 15, Title 6 of the NYS Environmental Conservation Law provides the regulatory framework for water reuse. Major benefits of water reuse include a reduction of nutrients into water bodies due to the diversion of the reclaimed wastewater for irrigation, resulting in plant growth/uptake and lessening of stress on virgin water sources.

"E. The Town, which has enacted a waterfowl feeding ban, should ensure that adequate signage is installed at town facilities to fully inform residents of the provisions of the feeding ban. The County of Suffolk should consider amending Section 643-4 of the Suffolk County Code to prohibit the feeding of waterfowl in county parks." (At 182-83.)

These are going in the right direction, but how will they happen?

1. River water quality. Movement here. This has been added:

". . . . The purpose of this Carmans River Conservation and Management Plan is to ensure nondegradation of the current water quality of the Carmans River over the short-term (non-degradation goal), and an improvement in current water quality levels in the long term (restoration goal). . . .

"A. Adopt a goal of 1.27 mg/l total nitrogen and a 1.0 mg/l goal of nitrate nitrogen as its numerical standard. Further, establish a restoration goal of .5 mg/l for total nitrogen and a .35 mg/l goal for nitrate-nitrogen. These goals should be amended as new information is made available regarding the impact of nitrogen on ecological systems, communities, and species."

1. This is a significant change in the Town's thinking about the river.

The DGEIS

For the most part, the Town has found that the proposed actions will have no negative environmental impact, or in a few instances, only minor ones, so that no analysis of mitigation is needed in this environmental impact statement. In many respect, this result was to have been expected, for the intended result of the proposed actions are to help the environment within the watershed.

With respect to its land use and zoning recommendations, the DGEIS says only this:

"The Plan is not anticipated to result in potential adverse impacts upon the land use. Implementation of the plan recommendations are intended to improve the overall groundwater and surface water quality of the Management Plan Area by acquisition of lands, rezoning of lands and limiting new development within the watershed area.

". . . .

"Due to the fact that the potential for development within the Watershed will be significantly decreased, no mitigation is needed." (At 60.)

It speaks of impacts "within the Watershed". What it utterly fails to do is to address the potential environmental impacts of the proposals outside the watershed if only because of the Pine Barrens credits to be used. Plainly there will be some impacts, for the whole purpose of the 135 or so Pine Barrens credits to be issued (because of expanding the Pine Barrens Core) is to move development from the watershed to other parts of Town. The degree of the impacts elsewhere in Town need to be assessed and, if they are other than "minor", potential ways of mitigating the impacts need to be assess as well.

The September 2013 Plan and FGEIS

Numerous comments were made by many residents, environmentalists and others at a public hearing 7/30/13. More comments were submitted in writing by a deadline of 8/21/13.

The Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) was posted on The Town's website on 9/13/13, and the "Final" Plan was posted 9/23/13, in advance of hearings on each on October 1 and 15, respectively.

The Plan does contain changes, but not many relative the 13 letters submitted with comments and oral comments made at the 7/30/13 hearing. The main text of the plan has been marked to show changes from the 7/2/13 draft. The changes are marked (or tracked) in PDF and Word versions of the main text of the Plan. Click here to view or download the September 2013 Plan, FGEIS or the Plan marked to show changes from the 7/2/13 versions.