Protect North Bay
There is a debate going on about a plan to separate storm water from sanitary sewage bound for the waste water treatment plant. In December, the City was awarded a $600,000 CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) to do the sewer separation project. DPW superintendent Rob Perry maintains that the project is a Type II Action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and requires no environmental review. Timothy O'Connor, speaking on behalf of the Conservation Advisory Coalition, argues that the plan will result in an annual discharge of 242 million gallons of untreated storm water from the streets of Hudson into the sensitive ecosystem of North Bay and an Environmental Impact Statement is absolutely essential to understand the effects of that action.
A resolution declaring the project a Type II Action came before the Common Council in March. The Council postponed voting on it to allow time to study the issue. The aldermen are likely to vote on the resolution at their next meeting, which takes place on April 21. An online petition has been initiated urging the Council not to declare the project a Type II Action and instead to do an environmental review and prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. Click here to read and sign the petition.
COPYRIGHT 2015 CAROLE OSTERINK
This petition was drafted with the following recipients in mind:
ReplyDelete• US Department of Housing and Urban Development
• Environmental Protection Agency
• US Department of Commerce
• Congressman Chris Gibson (liaison to HUD)
• NYS Office of Homes and Community Renewal
• NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Water
• NYS Department of Environmental Conservation Permitting
• NYS Department of State Division of Coastal Resources
• Chief Counsel - NYS Department of State
• Mayor of the City of Hudson
• Common Council of the City of Hudson
• City of Hudson Corporate Counsel
• Riverkeeper
• Scenic Hudson
• The National Audubon Society
silence from the columbia land conservancy? and they have a grant (taxpayer money) for this area allready in hand? shameful...
ReplyDeleteGossips post:July 2014:
ReplyDelete"The issue now isn't a case decided years ago but going forward, why is our group of fisher folk being denied access (at gun point) to "our" shore.
How will Goofy and Giffy craft policy that allows tourists while denying local citizens who have lived and paid taxes here for half a century. It's a difficult task but I'm sure they'll come up with some unbiased new law."
1 Riparian
The shame is that hundreds of locals used North dock before and although there's plenty of room for many more, it remains restricted....
I'm very happy to see that individuals associated with the Columbia Land Conservancy have signed the petition. I encourage many more to sign.
ReplyDeleteIf the bay could express its gratitude ... well, then it would surely defend itself.
There are two rare habitats in the North Bay, both threatened in different ways by the city's plan.
ReplyDeleteFrom the DEC's Natural Heritage Program:
1. Freshwater Tidal Marsh: "The majority of occurrences [in NY State] are on the Hudson River with over 75% in Greene, Columbia, and Dutchess Counties."
http://www.acris.nynhp.org/guide.php?id=9869
2. Freshwater Intertidal Mudflats: "All occurrences [in NY State] are on the Hudson River with about 90% in Greene, Columbia, and Dutchess Counties."
http://www.acris.nynhp.org/guide.php?id=9870