|
Last Updated: Nov 2nd, 2009 - 17:32:57 |
Maybe, but we need more time to think it over.
That was the city Department of Environmental Protection’s response to nearly every suggestion raised by a committee overseeing efforts to protect Jamaica Bay.
In its formal reply to 62 proposals put forth by the Jamaica Bay Watershed Protection Plan Advisory Committee, DEP says it needs more time to assess 60 of them. Of the remaining two recommendations, one—for a health study of people who eat bay fish—was rejected and the other was noted as the subject of ongoing legal action.
“We should have got one approved, at least,” said John Fazio, a Hamilton Beach resident who was one of dozens gathered for a meeting on the Jamaica Bay plan last week at Brooklyn’s Floyd Bennett Field.
The hearing gathered public comments on DEP’s interim watershed protection report, a milestone that marks the midway point to presenting a final plan to the City Council next October. Both the advisory committee and DEP have been working together on the project since last year, in an effort to reduce pollution and retain the bay’s disappearing salt marshes.
The seven member advisory committee—comprised of government agency representatives, environmentalists, scientists and community advocates—proposed a laundry list of ideas in June to curb runoff, protect habitat and enforce pollution laws. Fifteen of those ideas were named top priorities, including upgrading sewage plants and developing a plan to monitor invasive species.
In its official response, DEP indicated its support for many of the concepts; indeed, many of the suggestions that were set aside for further study will “almost certainly” be implemented, said DEP spokesman Ian Michaels.
“But the complicated and lengthy process of developing an effective protection plan requires more study of many of the suggestions to determine whether they are feasible, whether they will be effective, their cost, coordination with other city agencies and other factors,” Michaels added.
As DEP and the advisory committee continue their work, several people spoke at last Wednesday’s hearing in support of specific initiatives. Ida Sanoff, vice president of the National Resources Protective Association, said the final plan should bar the use of any fill material that did not originate at the bay.
Dan Mundy Jr., a Broad Channel resident, said DEP must work to reduce the amount of nitrogen it puts into the bay in the form of treated wastewater. The bay’s four sewage plants currently dump about 30,000 pounds of nitrogen each day; Mundy said the bay can handle only up to 10,000 pounds daily.
Bill Woodruff, a member of the Deep Creek Yacht Club, said the plan must be cautious not to single out boat wake as the only source of wave action that can lead to erosion. He also voiced his support for making the bay a no discharge zone that would require all boats to remove their waste at sanctioned pump out stations.
Top of Page
Post an instant comment or a suggestion to the above article or news
Note: You can use the above link to form a new discussion forum, place your opinion and discuss events, politics, articles, environment, fashion, health, internet, search engines, marketing, movies, music, religion and any other topic.
|
Submit Articles
Author Login
