Public Comment in opposition to the proposed anchorages in the Hudson

Dear Rear Admiral Poulin:

I write to you regarding the proposed new anchorage grounds in the Hudson River from Yonkers, NY to Kingston, NY.

As the Assemblymember representing twenty municipalities in the Hudson Valley including seven along the banks of the Hudson River, I am very concerned about the potential negative impact these proposed anchorages would have on our region. Since I have been in office, I have worked alongside my neighbors and constituents in opposition to any project or proposal that would negatively impact our beautiful Hudson Valley communities, our economy, and our natural, cultural and historic treasures. These proposed anchorage sites put at serious risk both the majestic Hudson River, following decades spent working to clean it up, and the Hudson Valley economy, which is just emerging from the recession thanks to a robust tourism and agricultural boom. 

I have been a vocal opponent of shipping crude oil along the banks of the Hudson River and these proposed anchorages represent the expectation of additional crude oil carried on the river by barge. Any additional oil or petroleum product shipped along the river increases the likelihood of a catastrophic oil spill that could both damage the river’s still recovering ecosystem and harm the health and viability of communities and businesses along the banks of the river.

As Assembly Chair of the Subcommittee on Regional Tourism Development, promoting and supporting the local tourism industry is a priority for me and my office. It was recently reported that the tourism sector contributed over $500 million to the local economy and it is clear these proposed anchorages would negatively impact this important industry. Whether noise and light pollution or disruption along the waterfront, these anchorages would be a blot on viewsheds immortalized by painters like Frederick Church and Thomas Cole which still draw millions of visitors to this beautiful region each year.

I believe that the Coast Guard should not move forward with the project.