Bill would delay river anchorage plan
Move would slow review process of Coast Guard proposal by at least a year
Recommendations on establishing 10 anchorage sites in the Hudson River will be delayed for at least a year under a congressional bill that would require the U.S. Coast Guard to conduct environmental studies on the proposal.
The move to slow the review process was announced in separate press releases from U.S. Rep. John Faso, RKinderhook, and U.S. Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney, D-Cold Spring, with both men taking credit for language that passed the house Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.
Faso, in a telephone interview, said the Coast Guard would have six months to provide a summary of public comments on the proposed anchorages and then wait at least another six months before approving the sites, under the proposal.
“It basically requires the Coast Guard to provide a detailed report
to the Senate and House Transportation Committee as to the public comments and to give us their opinion as to the comments and in the meantime make sure that no anchorages could be established while this discussion is pending,” he said. “In essence, what this does ... (is stop) that process dead in its tracks and forces the Coast Guard to give us their analysis of this question.”
The new anchorage sites have been proposed by the Maritime Association of the Port of New York/New Jersey, the Hudson River Port Pilots Association and the American Waterways Operators. Three of the sites would be between Dutchess and Ulster counties.
Maloney, in a press release, said the legislation was based on the “Anchorages Away Act” he has proposed to identify “impacts of these proposed anchorages on existing superfund sites and habitats of endangered species and the Coast Guard’s response” to public concerns.
“The Coast Guard’s proposal to install new anchorage sites on the Hudson River is (a) disaster,” Maloney said. “It’s a terrible idea and I’ll do whatever I can to stop it . ... Getting my provision into this bill will make sure we slow this thing down and find out the effects this dangerous proposal will have on our river and our communities.”
The moves in Washington come as local officials are getting behind proposed state legislation to set conditions for anchorages. Under the state proposal, state Department of Environmental Conservation officials would work with the state Department of State and the state Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation to set “conditions for petroleum-bearing vessels to enter or move upon navigable waters of the state” and to establish “tankeravoidance zones.”
Kingston city Laws and Rules Committee members on Monday endorsed supporting the state legislation, with officials asking the state to “take a stronger role in controlling the placement of any anchorage areas for petroleum-carrying vessels.”
Among the proposed anchorage sites between Kingston and Yonkers are:
• Kingston Flats South, covering about 280 acres for up to three vessels.
• Port Ewen, covering about 50 acres for one vessel.
• Big Rock Point, covering about 210 acres for up to four vessels.
• Roseton, covering about 305 acres for up to three vessels.
• Milton, covering about 75 acres for up to two vessels.
• Marlboro, covering about 155 acres for up to three vessels.
The plan has drawn significant criticism from elected officials and environmental groups up and down the Hudson River, including Ulster County Executive Michael Hein, the Ulster County Legislature, Kingston Mayor Steve Noble, the Kingston Common Council and supervisors of towns on both sides of the river.
Opponents say they fear the river will become a parking lot for commercial vessels waiting their turn at the Port of Albany and that the number of vessels carrying Bakken crude along the river could increase significantly, creating a potential hazard.
The industry has said the sites are needed to create safe places for ships to stop and crews to rest.