In the last few years, barge traffic on the Hudson has increased dramatically, but until now there have been no federally designated anchorages on the river. Tug and barge operators have anchored at traditional berths in an informal manner. About a year ago, the U.S. Coast Guard advised vessel operators that they should prepare to anchor in seven federally designated anchorages. The maritime industry responded with a request for 10 anchorages with 43 berths. Riverkeeper and many of the towns along the Hudson are opposing any federally designated anchorages. Below, we ask the same three questions of Eric Johansson, executive director of the Tug & Barge Committee of the Maritime Association of the Port of New York & New Jersey and Paul Gallay, president of Riverkeeper. Anyone may file a comment on the issue with the Coast Guard until December 6, 2016.
You represent opposing viewpoints in the debate about the federal designation of anchorages in the Hudson River to accommodate commercial vessels. What’s your constituency’s rationale for supporting or opposing federally designated anchorages in the Hudson River?
Eric Johansson: The anchorages are not new and have been custom and practice navigation safety anchorages for decades supporting current demand. This operational request is simply to codify current commercial custom and practice anchorages identified by working mariners as crucial to navigation safety, and do not reflect all of the anchorages considered. The rationale to support federal designation and preserve custom and practice anchorages are: 1. Anchorages are crucial to navigation safety; 2. Designating anchorages protects navigation safety from competing interests (high power cables and pipelines), 3. provides regulatory oversight, and 4. supports crucial supply chains during ice season (home heating oil) and episodic environmental events (i.e. Sandy, Irene). Recently, in preparation for the arrival of Hurricane Hermione, more than 25 units were anchored within these very anchorages. Had Hurricane Hermione reached New York Harbor, many more would have sought refuge from the storm anchoring in the Hudson.
Paul Gallay: It’s worth noting the shipping industry’s own words about what’s driving this proposal. The Tug and Barge Committee’s Jan. 21, 2016 letter to U.S. Coast Guard states: “The United States of America has developed as a major energy producing nation and the great port of Albany as a leading export for … trade of American Bakken crude oil and ethanol. Trade will increase on the Hudson River significantly over the next few years with the lifting of the ban on American crude exports for foreign trade, and federally designated anchorages are key to supporting trade.”
Simply put, this proposal is not about vessel safety on the river, as the industry maintains. This is about moving more crude oil along the Hudson. That’s why we oppose it. The benefits aren’t there, and the potential costs are horrific. More oil equals more risk of a spill. And a major spill of crude oil could reverse all the progress that has been made by Riverkeeper and others over the last five decades to clean up the river and restore it to health. The public is speaking out to reject the “re-industrialization” of a river that has been degraded for so long by industry, and is just beginning to heal.
It’s clear from accidents around the country that crude oil cannot be recovered or cleaned up if it is spilled into a moving waterway like the Hudson. Another concern: Several of the proposed anchorages are in areas that endangered sturgeon rely on for survival. In addition, people who live along the Hudson have raised objections over the bright lights and noise generated by anchored barges. At least 16 Hudson River communities passed formal resolutions in opposition to the proposed anchorages, and dozens of federal, state and local elected officials have written letters. This is not a case of one environmental organization opposing re-industrialization. It’s a case of an entire valley of communities opposing the anchorage request.
The Hudson River is designated both an America’s Marine Highway, expanding the use of our nation’s navigable waterways to relieve landside congestion and reduce air emissions, and a National Heritage Area, protecting the environmental and cultural resources of the river valley. Can commercial anchorages and increasing barge traffic on the Hudson River be compatible with both these initiatives?
Paul Gallay: Yes, the river is an industrial corridor, for rail, pipelines, barges, ships, power plants and power lines. Yes, those competing uses have to be balanced. But if one looks beyond this immediate request and takes a historical perspective, it’s obvious that the balance was long ago tipped, and industry has had its way. And what the public is saying is: That’s enough. No more barge anchorages, no more crude oil, no Pilgrim oil pipeline, no expansion of the Port of Albany, no deepening of the channel to allow bigger ships. The issue isn’t just 43 new berths. It’s the continuation of the past industrial “use” of the river that has already compromised the river too much. And while we can’t undo the past, we can prevent history from repeating itself.
No one opposing the anchorages is asking the industry to reduce the existing transport of refined products along the river. We’re willing to accept that. Delivery of refined products to Albany from refineries on the coast has been going on for decades without issue. So we mustn’t let the industry use scare tactics and invoke heating oil shortages if the anchorages are not approved. But crude oil is a game-changer in the discussion of commercial traffic along the Hudson. It carries a risk unlike that of other cargo being shipped on the Hudson every day.
The risk has already skyrocketed with the shipment of domestic oil through the Port of Albany and along the Hudson by barge and rail, all without meaningful public and environmental review, since 2012. We are absolutely in favor of safety in navigation, but we have yet to hear any factual argument on why such a drastic increase in anchorage grounds would be necessary for safety. In our patrols over the last 16 years, we have never seen even a half-dozen vessels anchored on the river at any time. What is the need for 43 new berths? What possible emergency scenario would require 16 additional berths near Yonkers, and eight near Kingston?
During Superstorm Sandy these same anchorage areas were used by the Coast Guard for safety without the need for permanent, official authorization. They were authorized on an emergency and temporary basis. And the public has no problem with that. It’s the permanent and unrestricted use that the public opposes.
Eric Johansson: The national heritage of Hudson River, since its discovery by Henry Hudson, is marine trade and transportation. Thousands, if not millions, of ships have anchored in the Hudson River since the Halve Maen first dropped anchor. Commercial navigation primarily moves heavy bulk materials that otherwise would move by truck. Marine transportation removes thousands of heavy-duty trucks off our roads and bridges each and every day. Marine transportation boasts zero discharge into the Hudson River and invests heavily in environmentally friendly engines that boast less than 10% of CO2 emissions per million ton miles compared to truck transportation. All tank barges are double-hulled for optimum safety (truck and rail are single skin) and are manned by highly skilled mariners. For every one death in marine transportation there are 22 in rail industry and 155 in trucking.
American-crewed tugboats in New York are the eyes and ears on the state’s waterways and stand ready to provide critical assistance in the event of a national security threat or natural disaster. New York’s waterways and ports support 152,000 jobs in the state and directly contribute $32 billion to the state’s economy while moving nearly 28 million tons of domestic freight every year including $96.4 billion worth of manufactured goods. Commercial marine traffic is demand-based. Currently, marine transportation serves the citizens of New York demand for many bulk items including home heating oil, gasoline, construction products, and much more. Commercial marine transportation is the greenest mode of transportation reducing emissions, noise pollution, road congestion, and reduces transportation cost to New York State consumers for many essential needs, including home heating oil.
Knowing the other side’s reasoning, what do you think is a fair outcome? Would you seek or accept a compromise?
Eric Johansson: Fair play fosters fair outcomes. The Tug and Barge Committee communicated its proposal to Riverkeeper out of respect and community kindness. Riverkeeper communicated two concerns about the proposal: lighting and generator noise of anchored units at the Kingston Hub Anchorage. We thanked them for their comments and offered to work with the community to see if anything could be done…fair play. After the proposal was released for comments, a barrage of outrageous untrue assertions was unleashed in a firestorm…unfair play. Anchorages require infrastructure: untrue. Tank barges are unmanned in anchorages: untrue. Anchorages support crude oil storage: untrue. Anchorages are tied to reindustrialization: unsubstantiated. Anchorages harm fish: unsubstantiated.
The operational safety need for federally designated anchorages has been identified and set forth by the U.S. Coast Guard and therefore the tug and barge industry can only respond to its content and not speculate on what may or may not be in consideration for compromise.
Paul Gallay: In the context of history, we have done nothing but compromise the river’s health to benefit industry for centuries. So any discussion of compromise on this specific request is missing the point entirely. The time for compromise was decades ago. We at Riverkeeper, along with dozens of communities, organizations and elected officials, are calling for a full Environmental Impact Statement on any formal proposal for new anchorages. We look forward to an environmental review process that provides a transparent, thorough, factual and comprehensive look at the numerous environmental impacts that could result from such a plan.