BETHEL —  The proposal for the creation of a Critical Environmental Area (CEA) designation for the White Lake Watershed, as prepared by Nan Stolzenburg and Rick Lederer-Barnes of the firm Community Planning & Environmental Associates, was approved by the town board.

A CEA is a geographic area having “exceptional or unique environmental or cultural characteristics” that is “designated by the state or local government” as “a benefit to health…a fish and wildlife habitat, a forest, vegetation, open space, or area of important aesthetic or scenic quality.” 

This designation also means having an ecological, geological, or hydrological adverse sensitivity to changes.

Evaluation of adverse effects on a CEA would take place during the SEQR (State Environmental Quality Review) process required during review of projects by the Planning Board and ZBA, so that adverse impacts can be minimized or environmental hazards can be avoided. 

Activities such as subdivisions, site plan approvals, or special use permit approvals would be affected. The question, “How does a proposal impact the topological system?” would come up during environmental review, for example.

The Lake Association of White Lake initially developed a boundary of a CEA which included White Lake, White Lake Brook, Kauneonga Lake, and an area of wildlife habitat. The original proposal drawn up by CP & EA in September focused on the actual watershed boundary more closely. At prior Town Board meetings, the Mountain Lake Watershed, White Lake Brook, and the village of Kauneonga Lake came up as areas of concern by members of the public. 

In response to these concerns, an addenda was written by CP & EA that “explores connections between White Lake and Mountain Lake” and offers three options for expansion of the CEA boundary. These options were presented by Nan Stolzenburg, who attended via zoom, at a Special Bethel Town Board meeting Monday, October 21.

What were the options?

Out of three options given, the third was unanimously approved by the Town Board and members of the public lauded the leadership of the Board in taking a forward leap in protecting our water resources.

Option Three encompasses the full Mountain Lake Watershed, and both Judson Brook and White Lake Watersheds, “more accurately depicting areas that impact water quality in Mountain Lake”. Supervisor Dan Sturm was in favor of the third option that encompasses the entire area. It “is a bold, innovative initiative in line” with the goal of protecting water resources.

Option One included the riparian buffer, a strip of vegetation next to waterbodies, connecting White Lake and Mountain Lake. However, since this area is already recognized as a State Regulated Wetland, and although it is “an important hydrological and ecological area”, this option “may not be more effective during SEQR analysis” than what already exists.

Option Two included the White Lake and White Lake Brook Watersheds up to the inlet of Mountain Lake. This larger area includes the riparian buffer of Option One, and encompasses water collection into the White Lake / Mountain Lake system. However, it excludes “additional water drainage into Mountain Lake through Judson Brook” from the North.

Councilwoman Wendy Brown, who attended a conference at the Villa Roma where the greater Delaware River Watershed was discussed, stated, “When you look at how big this is, I don’t think you have an option other than number three…as long as it doesn’t cause delay.”

When asked for a timeframe, Nan Stolzenburg stated, “It would just be [a matter of] editing to get you a full report by the week before the next Town Board meeting on November 13.”

Sturm added, “Our intent would be to pass this in December.” After a public hearing, there’s voting, and then it goes to the NYS DEC.

Community input

Clay Ruede, of the SWCA Board, spoke about “our imperiled water bodies” and eutrophic lakes producing algae blooms. 

“We need swift and imme diate response,” he said. Steve Marton, of the Lake Association, said, “There’s no limitation on [the number of] CEAs. 

“We think there’s justification for other CEAs…We support the largest CEA we can do.” 

Town resident Steve Altman said he’s “been on this lake since 1953” and has “seen a lot of changes…The water level is fourteen inches lower than in the past.” 

Mentioning that fertilizers and pesticides flow right into the lake from lawns, he stated, “I think it’s a great idea to include all of the watershed.” 

Another resident called forth data that five of the seven Sullivan County lakes recorded by the DEC as having algae blooms are in Bethel. Wendy Brown said that periodic cleaning of home septic systems would help mitigate the problem.

Town resident Karen London gave credit to Dan Sturm, who “took the right step”. “This Board is showing true leadership,” she said.

She was also joined by resident Andrew Klebanow, who stated via zoom, “It answers a broader call from the wider community…We’re truly thrilled that the Board and community are embracing this concept.”

Town resident Larry Seitelman said, “There is no down side to Option Three,” and thanked the Board saying  that “it’s an advantage to anyone who wants to live a quality life here in Sullivan County.”