On June 9th, 2026 I sat through the painful 4 hour hearing for the Coastal Resource Management Council’s (CRMC) assent of SouthCoast Wind’s application to run high voltage export cables up through the Sakonnet River. I very infrequently, if ever, attend these types of public hearings – not for lack of interest, rather that I’m always underwater all day and by the time I surface I just can’t be bothered with the obtusely disconnected perspectives of the environment that I literally just spent my entire day within. It is distinctly impossible to translate the compassionate perspectives gained by day to the political swamp by night.
In this case I felt compelled – I’ve seen things at the bottom of the Sakonnet River that many could not even contemplate exist (another topic) here in Rhode Island and wanted to catch up on the state of the State.
As expected, the CRMC motioned to approve the project. Now, I recognize full well that there are procedures in place that bind the manner of information gathering, and also political pressures to move certain decisions forward. However, we are all still human and must employ critical thinking in our decision making, especially as it impacts others and the world around us.
I went back to the Energy Facilities Siting Board (EFSB) records to search for the nexus of where certain environmental issues in the Sakonnet appeared to be ignored or downplayed by the CRMC, and honed in on the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management’s (DEM) Advisory Opinion (SB-2022-02 – DEM Advisory Opinion – 2-7-25.pdf). Again, procedures are in place to capture and amass what we’ve come to be familiar with as ‘the best available science’ that guides decision making, so I do not fault any specific individual, rather here illustrate a systemic failure of even recognizing that precautionary principles warrant consideration.
The concluding advisory opinion reads, “The permit approval constitutes a determination that the project does not constitute an unacceptable harm to the environment with respect to those areas of environmental regulation under DEM’s jurisdiction.”
That’s a strong statement – implying that any harms are then indeed ‘acceptable’. Acceptable to whom?
Throughout the DEM Advisory Opinion, there are numerous statements of uncertainty, reading as follows:
“Impacts from these activities are not completely understood” (boulder relocation) – p. 9.
Yet, the project does not constitute an unacceptable harm to the environment
“Variable, and sometimes contradictory results” regarding EMF effects – p. 11.
Yet, the project does not constitute an unacceptable harm to the environment
“Additional studies will be needed” for HVDC cable impacts – p. 11.
Yet, the project does not constitute an unacceptable harm to the environment
“It is not known” how sea turtles process EMF – p. 11.
Yet, the project does not constitute an unacceptable harm to the environment
“Sand lance vulnerability … is not well-understood” – p. 16.
Yet, the project does not constitute an unacceptable harm to the environment
“Impact of offshore wind in the Northwest Atlantic is relatively unknown” – p. 16.
Yet, the project does not constitute an unacceptable harm to the environment
“Occurrence of passerines … is poorly understood” – p. 17.
Yet, the project does not constitute an unacceptable harm to the environment
“Impact of offshore wind on these birds largely unknown” – p. 17.
Yet, the project does not constitute an unacceptable harm to the environment
“Currently unquantified risk for migrant landbirds” – p. 18.
Yet, the project does not constitute an unacceptable harm to the environment
Taken together, these passages show that DEM identified unresolved scientific questions while nevertheless concluding that permit conditions could mitigate impacts within DEM’s jurisdiction.
Who exactly will be answering these unanswered scientific questions? Well, no one.
The prevailing initiative is then to monitor and mitigate [impacts] thereafter, rather than preserve and protect first and foremost – a direct contradiction to our duty under nearly all environmental laws and ocean regulations.
Through that prevailing approach, conservation is essentially dead.
I raise these issues now given the sheer magnitude of the proposed project by way of land/seafloor area. The cable corridor when complete will be just a couple feet wide, and that end game is what advocates promote – a series of acceptable broad concessions to arrive at something apparently necessary and with minimal long-term impact. Though the area in question has been mapped to consider a 4000 acre area during construction and cable installation – sounds a little bit different in that context.
Construction isn’t clean, especially underwater. I’ve buried cables, excavated cables, cut cables, and all types of other things buried beneath the seafloor. In all instances, avoidance is the best policy. That means move the cable to begin with. If there is not a location that eliminates so much scientific uncertainty, then it’s not approved. Period.
Unfortunately, massive political and economic forces are pushing us in this direction of perpetual environmental concessions, and it is horrifically misguided.
I will conclude just as I did with my statement at the hearing – what about the Atlantic Sturgeon? I’ll forgo a dissertation on the sturgeon here, but what a remarkable creature. It’s an endangered species and as applied to local waters, migrates in and out of the Taunton River via the Sakonnet and Mt. Hope Bay. Little is known about them because, well, they’re endangered so not too many around. The sturgeon bottom feed on things like crabs and are also sensitive to electromagnetic fields – both a direct contraindication to running high voltage cables throughout their entire migratory run. Yet, here we are, and without so much as a nod by environmental regulators despite prior state projects employing safeguards in the very same location. Here, the NMFS either dropped the ball with regard to inshore consideration for the cable run, or the State just forgot, or both, and it makes you wonder…
In 30 years and 6000+ hours on the bottom, I have encountered just one sturgeon. It was near the mouth of the Delaware River at about 70 feet of depth. We were recovering and redeploying ADCPs (acoustic doppler current profilers), an instrument used to model currents. Among the very barren and clay-like river bottom, a series of isolated ADCPs were operating, and the very little bit of EMF emitted from their batteries, sure enough, caught the attention of something big to come around. They would stay just out of sight in the midnight blackness of the river bottom. To we divers, raising alarms and making your heart skip a beat as we saw only a big 600 pound shadow in the distance. But then, barely caught with the beam of my light – a scale the size of a cellphone – phew! Not a shark, a sturgeon!
They have every right to call the ocean floor home, certainly moreso than we have any right to dig it up. Even our limited immersions to study, with isolated instrumentation, makes them question what we’re doing…so why don’t WE question what we’re doing?