Funding Omitted From New York Ocean Plan

New York officials have issued a 10-year plan calling for greater efforts to preserve the state’s marine environment in the face of human impact, habitat degradation, and climate change.

The Ocean Action Plan, released last Thursday, did not identify any new sources of funding for its more than 200 recommendations or offer estimates of their cost.

A separate study published last Thursday in the journal Science found that the risk of massive extinctions among animals that live in the earth’s oceans had increased due to the same factors. According to the authors of that study, new pressures have begun to emerge, among them mining, oil exploration, and some kinds of aquaculture.

In the state’s preliminary draft, which took about three years to complete, the Department of Environmental Conservation and Department of State pointed to environmental changes and the unsustainable exploitation of ocean, bay, and estuarine resources. It identified global warming as the most pressing challenge and listed a broad range of other reasons for concern. These included bycatch and other destructive fishing practices, ocean acidification, habitat loss, and water quality problems.

“This plan will help protect the more than 300 marine fish species reproducing and growing in these waters, support the valuable commercial and recreational fishing industries, as well as the 94 miles of New York State beaches that attract millions of visitors each year,” Joe Martens, the D.E.C. commissioner, said in a release.

The plan comes less than a month after a report from the state conservation department that listed 186 animal species at risk of catastrophic population declines within the next 10 years unless rapid steps are taken to reverse the trend. That document also did not include funding or cost estimates.

The 90-page document released last week outlined steps to protect the state’s marine waters and the creatures and businesses that depend on them over the 10-year period. It said that New York’s economic sustainability was inextricably tied to maintaining the integrity of its ocean ecosystem, including its estuarine, coastal, and offshore waters. They included inshore waters, such as those under local jurisdictions, as well as their watersheds, as essential parts of the puzzle.

The authors acknowledged that state funding was limited and that help from Washington as well as local governments and private groups on Long Island and elsewhere would be essential to protecting the remaining resources and making improvements.

The draft identified lapses in existing sea-grass mapping, understanding tidal wetland losses, and shellfish monitoring. It also laid out timetables for new initiatives designed to protect the marine environment, but did not provide estimates of how much they would cost to implement.

“The whole funding piece is missing. It is as if they just left that whole chapter out. It’s like buying a car and they don’t give you the keys,” said Robert DeLuca, the president of the Group for the East End.

Among the findings cited in the plan was that eelgrass, a marine plant considered essential habitat for many species, including bay scallops, juvenile fish, and up to 50 million small invertebrates per acre, had suffered massive declines. In the 1930s there were an estimated 200,000 acres of it in New York, but today only about 22,000 acres remain. The majority of the loss can be attributed to human activity, the authors concluded.

Recommendations included new policies on ocean aquaculture, a study of lobsters, and a look at the impact of beach nourishment on horseshoe crab spawning grounds. Also on the wish list were greater protection for Atlantic sturgeon, sea turtles, whales, and seabirds, and combating invasive species. It called for environmental assessments to better understand effects of offshore renewable energy development on wildlife.

Bonnie Brady, executive director of the Long Island Commercial Fishing Association, was cautiously optimistic. She said, for example, that a proposed inshore trawl survey, if funded, “would be a huge help to further improve the fisheries data that is plugged into fish population models, which ultimately determine quotas.”

Regarding sea level rise and coastal erosion, the authors advised a shift away from structural solutions to what they called living shorelines. These, they wrote, are an “alternative to shoreline armoring because they not only reduce erosion but can be cost effective, preserve land-water connections, mimic the natural landscape, and provide better environmental services in comparison with structural measures.”

Mr. DeLuca said that the absence of funding in the plan raised what in his view should be a key question. “If it is going to cost us money that we do not have, maybe we need to back off on coastal development,” he said.

The draft plan was a start, Mr. DeLuca said. “It calls attention to the resource, identifies problems, but it doesn’t give us a sense of who is going to do it, how it’s going to happen.”

“The public should really ask, ‘What is the state’s level of commitment?’ ” he said.

“If you just heap this up on top of the D.E.C., when are they going to get it done — 1,000 years from now?”

There will be hearings on the state plan on Feb. 10 at the Suffolk Parks Department office in West Sayville at 10 a.m. and at Riverhead Town Hall at 7 p.m. Additional meetings are planned on Feb. 24 in Freeport and on Feb. 26 at the Long Beach Library. A final meeting in New York City will be announced.

Written comments on the report have been invited and will be accepted by the Department of Environmental Conservation until March 9.