PROVIDENCE – It was a huge detail left out of the conversation, never shared with lawmakers or with the public, until Save The Bay spoke up on July 11: some 31 acres of upper Narragansett Bay were destined to be filled in, under the three phases of the development plan proposed by ProvPort to expand its port operations.

In the waning hours of its 2016 session, introduced as a last minute floor amendment, the R.I. General Assembly approved a $20 million bond referendum to fund the port expansion, attaching it to a $50 million bond referendum to rebuild the piers at Quonset. The legislative action took many lawmakers by surprise.

The $20 million bond referendum has been positioned largely as a commercial real estate deal, the first step to enlarge the capacity of the port of Providence, with Secretary Stefan Pryor of CommerceRI vouching for the bond question, according to newspaper reports.

What Save The Bay revealed in its July 11 news release was that the proposed port expansion, although not set forth in the language of the bond referendum that voters will be asked to approve in November, was actually a three-phased project that included plans to landfill some 31 acres of Narragansett Bay.

To put the size of the proposed fill operation into perspective, the size of Narragansett Bay to be filled in – some 31 acres – is four acres larger than the 27 acres of the land freed up by the relocation of Route 195.

The plans for the proposed port expansion initiative appeared to be following the playbook recommended in the March 18, 2016, report, “Economic Development Impact Assessment Study, Phases I, II & III, of the Allens Avenue Marine Terminal Development,” according to Save The Bay. [A link to a revised version of the study, dated March 23, 2016, is provided below, accessed through the cloud.]

The report had been labeled “not for public distribution,” according to the copy obtained by Save The Bay; it had been prepared by Vickerman & Associates, a port planning consulting firm, and had been commissioned by ProvPort. Exactly how much ProvPort paid for the Vickerman study has yet to be made public.

The art of keeping people, legislators “uninformed”
In its news release, Save The Bay, an environmental and advocacy membership organization dedicated to protecting the “national treasure” that is Narragansett Bay, made clear it was not opposed to the land-side expansion of ProvPort operations.

“But we are dead-set against filling the Bay,” said Jonathan Stone, executive director of Save The Bay. The Vickerman report, Stone continued in the news release, clearly called for the filling in of the Bay to develop “a new deep-water general cargo, multi-purpose port marine terminal with on-dock intermodal rail logistics capability.”

In addition, Save The Bay raised questions about the intended purchase under the bond referendum of a 5.27 acre parcel now owned by AARE, LLC, which houses the operations of Rhode Island Recycled Metals, a scrap metal processing business that has been repeatedly cited for environmental violations, according to Save The Bay.

The R.I. Department of Environmental Management and the R.I. Attorney General’s office are currently in Superior Court seeking the appointment of a receiver to ensure that the polluted site is cleaned up and vessels littering the Providence River are removed, including the sunken former Russian submarine that was once marketed as a tourist attraction, according to Save The Bay.

“It appears that Rhode Islanders are being asked to buy a contaminated property from a blatant polluter, who may benefit financially at taxpayer expense,” Stone said in the news release.

The public needs to understand what it is voting for, Stone continued. “[The public] deserves full disclosure on how the public interest is served by this major investment. It is on the General Assembly, the Governor and the R.I. Commerce Corporation to assure Rhode Islanders that Phase One is a standalone project, and we are not spending $20 million of public money as the first step in a plan to fill Narragansett Bay – or to benefit a company that has degraded our environment for years and continues to pollute the Providence River.”

In an interview with ConvergenceRI on July 12, Stone said that, to date, he had not heard directly from either Stefan Pryor or CommerceRI, Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza, the city of Providence and ProvPort, regarding his request for public assurances that the $20 million bond referendum was not part of a three-phase plan that included the filling of 31 acres of Narragansett Bay.

Instead, in a statement to The Providence Journal, Bill Fischer, the high-priced public relations consultant who is serving as the spokesman for ProvPort, called Stone “uninformed.”

Stone bristled when asked about the characterization by Fischer that he was “uninformed.”

“My response would be: It seems that many members of the R.I. General Assembly were also uninformed,” Stone told ConvergenceRI. “The ProJo [in its June 18 story] noted that many members expressed surprise that this proposal surfaced at the 11th hour with inadequate information. We’re not the only one. Whose fault is that, that they were uninformed?”

Defining Rhode Island
It was a spectacular summer morning when ConvergenceRI arrived at the oasis that is Save The Bay headquarters along the Providence waterfront to interview Stone, a scene worthy of inclusion in the re-launch of the state’s tourism marketing campaign: the water sparkled under a bright sun, reflecting the blue skies, as dozens of sailboats dotted the seascape. An intoxicating aroma of wildflowers from the coastal barrier marsh wafted on the sea breeze, as dragonflies, butterflies and birds darted in and out.

The spinning blades of the three wind turbines at Fields Point, powering the Narragansett Bay Commission facility, provided the backdrop.

The scene also served as a reminder that when it comes to understanding and navigating the innovation ecosystem in Rhode Island, perhaps nothing defines its living, breathing nature better than Narragansett Bay.

“What would Rhode Island be without the Bay?” Stone asked, in response to a question about the economic value of Narragansett Bay. “It would not be Rhode Island. It is so intrinsic to so much of our identity – and the identity of the state,” he said. “It is built around people’s ability to use the Bay and to have a healthy Bay.”

Everyone and everything in Rhode Island, Stone continued, are direct economic beneficiaries of a healthy Bay.

Here is the ConvergenceRI interview with Jonathan Stone, executive director of Save The Bay, as he explained the efforts to keep the voters of Rhode Island fully informed.

ConvergenceRI: What made you decide to speak out at this point?
STONE: We first learned about this bond proposal from a report in The Providence Journal about three weeks ago. It was clear, based upon that [story], that many members of the [R.I. General] Assembly were just learning about it for the first time, as well.

One of the things we learned was that ProvPort, which was the promoter of this project, and which operates a big chunk of the Providence waterfront, was urging this $20 million bond as part of a longer-term plan to expand the port.

They shared with the Assembly a report prepared by a consultant, Vickerman & Associates, a very reputable firm, that laid out a three-phase plan for developing the waterfront.

That really alarmed us, because the only facts we had to go on was what ProvPort put forward publicly. We don’t know what they’ve said privately to the governor’s staff, the Commerce Corp, the city, the mayor, or anyone else about what their intentions were.

All we had to go on was what this Vickerman study said, which clearly lays out three phases of a port expansion project.

The bond request covers Phase One, which includes acquiring land; Phases Two and Three involve filling pretty significant acreage in the Bay.

ConvergenceRI: Some 31 acres?
STONE: Yes, 31 acres. Furthermore, the report identifies specific parcels that the consultant recommends be acquired in Phase One.

One parcel is that owned by a company affiliated with Rhode Island Recycled Metals, which operates a scrap yard; it is the operation immediately north of the Route 95 onramp [on Allens Avenue].

They’ve been in trouble with the DEM for eight years. They’ve been in trouble with the Coast Guard since they started operations. They’ve been polluting the bay. They’ve been [accused of] violating numerous water quality statutes.

They are in court right now with the R.I. Attorney General and with the R.I. Department of Environmental Management over environmental violations.

The second factor that really raised our eyebrows was that this company, which has been a bad actor on the waterfront; now, it appears, the now the state is going to buy them out.

How exactly is that going to work? Because the state should not be paying to clean up [the mess] this guy created.

You asked the question: what led us to make a pubic statement about this?

We want assurance that this operator is held accountable for the cost of the cleanup.

And, we want assurance that this Phase One is standalone port development; that [the $20 million bond referendum] is not the first step to additional requests to fill in the Bay.

ConvergenceRI: It seems apparent that there were a lot of negotiations that were happening behind closed doors at the R.I. General Assembly. Did anyone from CommerceRI or Stefan Pryor ever reach out and try to contact you?
STONE: No.

ConvergenceRI: Have they contacted you now, since the news release?
STONE: No one from Commerce Corp. has been in touch. We have been in regular communication with the Governor’s policy staff. They’ve always been very good at keeping us in the loop.

We were very surprised by this. We had reached out to the governor’s staff immediately to express our concerns. This is all after the fact.

ConvergenceRI: Did you take this position based on your role as a membership organization? Were you being pushed by your membership? Or did you feel that it this was an urgent matter that demanded you speak out, on behalf of your members?
STONE: Well, I would say the latter. Part of our role is as a watchdog.

It’s not obvious to anyone, unless you’re reading and analyzing the facts [in the consultant’s report] that the bond referendum has anything to do with filling the Bay.

So, it’s our decision to make a public statement on this now, based upon on view that we wanted to send a very clear message about these two principal concerns.

ConvergenceRI: If you don’t get any assurances, what’s the next step? I can’t say that the response by Bill Fischer, the spokesman for Prov Port, was promising; he called you “uninformed.”
STONE: My response would be: It seems that many members of the R.I. General Assembly were also uninformed. The ProJo noted [in its June 18 story] that many members expressed surprise that this proposal surfaced at the 11th hour with inadequate information. We’re not the only one. Whose fault is that, that they were uninformed?

ConvergenceRI: There often seems to be a dividing line, a false dichotomy, in discussing the economic and environmental concerns about Narragansett Bay. How would you reframe that conversation? What is the total economic value of the Bay?
STONE: It’s a fair question. Let me put in this way. What would Rhode Island be without the Bay? It wouldn’t be Rhode Island. It’s so intrinsic to so much of our identity and the identity of the state, which is built around people’s ability to use the Bay and to have a healthy Bay.

The direct economic beneficiaries of a healthy bay include recreation, fishing, etc. Think about the indirect benefits such as the real estate values. The entire real estate market is built upon a healthy, fishable swimmable Bay.

This is not about one or the other: this [conflict] is not about economic development versus the environment.

This is not what it’s about. We said in the press release that we have no issue and no problem with the port of Providence, and with ProvPort, and their expansion on the land.

We do not have an issue with that. What we’re talking about is taking public resources, public trust resources, Narragansett Bay, and repurposing it for what seems to us a narrow purpose. We’re not convinced that you need to fill the Bay.

What we want is for elected officials to speak to the public directly and say: filling the Bay is not in the cards.

ConvergenceRI: If that doesn’t happen, if you can’t get those assurances, and if you can’t get assurances that the state will not be responsible for the clean up when it buys the property of the alleged bad actor, will you move to oppose this referendum?
STONE: For the record, right now, we’re not opposed to the referendum, per se; we’re highlighting an issue and expressing concerns.

ConvergenceRI: And, if there are not assurances forthcoming?
STONE: We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. It is a big deal for us, and we would hate to see the state march down a path that is bad for the Bay and bad for the general public.

ConvergenceRI: Stepping back a bit, when did you first learn about the consultant’s report produced by Vickerman?
STONE: The first we heard about it was after it had been presented to the House Finance Committee.

ConvergenceRI: Was the report ever shared publicly?
STONE: No, not to my knowledge.

ConvergenceRI: Who commissioned the report?
STONE: ProvPort.

ConvergenceRI: Who paid for it?
STONE: ProvPort.

ConvergenceRI: Had there been any public discussion of the Vickerman report prior to the legislative action?
STONE: Not that we know of. The document itself says: this is not for public dissemination. It’s in the text of the document.

ConvergenceRI: How did Save the Bay acquire a copy?
STONE: That’s a good question. We received a copy. It was from an interested party. It wasn’t given to me directly; it was given to a member of our staff.

ConvergenceRI: Moving forward, what would you like to see happen?
STONE: Two things. First, we’d like to see Mayor, the director of ProvPort, and the Governor, make it a clear public pronouncement that this proposal is not part of a long-term plan to fill the Bay – that the project stands on its own.

Second, that the Rhode Island Recycled Metals will not benefit financially from an acquisition of that parcel, and that they are held fully to account for paying for the clean up of the recycled metals site.

ConvergenceRI: Up to this point, has either Mayor Jorge Elorza, Gov. Gina Raimondo, except for her policy staff, or Stefan Pryor, has reached out to you directly?
STONE: No.

ConvergenceRI: Has anyone from the R.I. General Assembly reached out to you specifically?
STONE: No.

ConvergenceRI: There are a number of environmental and consumer issues now under discussion in the state, where it seems the costs of the externalities are not part of the economic equations. What is the economic calculation for measuring the damage that would be done by filling 31 acres of the Bay? Has Save The Bay taken a position on the proposed natural gas facility by National Grid?
STONE: No, we haven’t. And, the reason for that is that the proposed [natural gas] liquefaction plant does not have any Bay impacts. We are not talking about changes to the waterfront; we’re not talking about additional shipping imports.

That’s really a land-side project. National Grid, as a company, has obeyed the rules. They’ve played by the rules.

That’s one thing that gets lost in all this. We’ve made the case for years now, that a fair and level playing field when it comes to environmental regulation is good for business.

It makes [the process] predictable; it allows for businesses to make economic decisions where they understand that all of their peers and competitors must obey the same rules.

If Recycled Metals were to benefit financially from this, it’s a slap in the face to those companies that have invested in storm water management, that have played by the rules.

ConvergenceRI: What is the status of the case in Superior Court right now? Are you a participant? Have you filed an amicus brief?
STONE: We’re a very interested observer. We are very pleased with the Attorney General’s prosecution of this. They are in the process of determining a receiver to be named to handle the clean up.

ConvergenceRI: Is the company now in bankruptcy?
STONE: I do not believe so, but you better fact check on that. They are still operating, but some of the prohibited activities have been curtailed, like car crushing. They are not allowed to do car crushing [anymore].

ConvergenceRI: How long do you think it will take to reach a resolution in court?
STONE: My understanding is that it may require quite a bit of time to resolve the dispute and to enforce a clean up.

We are not trying to put the company out of business. We want the site cleaned up and the pollution halted, and the vessel removed from the harbor.

ConvergenceRI: Is that the sunken Russian sub?
STONE: Yes. It’s still there.

ConvergenceRI: In the news release, you contrast the $20 million bond referendum with the failure by the R.I. General Assembly to invest in hiring two more R.I. DEM inspectors. Can you talk about that and compare the investments?
STONE: I think it’s a picture of the state of mind of the General Assembly. It seems like a really significant investment, $20 million, which is a lot of money for a port development project, seems to fly right through.

But asking for two employees at the R.I. DEM to handle enforcement cases, a request that the Governor made in her budget, is denied.

ConvergenceRI: What was the cost of hiring those two inspectors?
STONE: I would say that it is well under $500,000. [The FY 2017 proposed budget by Gov. Raimondo asked for $208,000.] You’re looking at a miniscule investment to strengthen the enforcement program, to give DEM the resources to do its job. And, by doing that, you ensure that potential polluters take you seriously, and that they take the regulators seriously, that they recognize that if they violate the law, they will be prosecuted.

ConvergenceRI: There appears to be, both as part of the national political dialogue, and here in Rhode Island, the idea promoted by some that environmental regulation is bad for business. Can you talk about that?
STONE: Thanks to the Clean Water Act, we can fish and swim in almost all quarters of Narragansett Bay. The Clean Water Act was the basis for a range of environmental protections that protect the Bay from pollution and require polluters to clean up their act.

That’s why we have such a vibrant Bay today.

And, yes, there are always going to be superfluous regulations; there are always going to be regulations that might be redundant, or burdensome, that’s not we are talking about.

We’re talking about well-established regulatory programs and Clean Water Act programs enforced by the R.I. DEM that have been in place for years and years and years.

The economy here, the economy in Massachusetts, and the economy in Connecticut have done just fine playing by those rules.

This is not about bad regulations. The rules have been in place.

What we are calling out here is a lack of fairness – and anyone in the private sector should be concerned about it. Whether you’re a citizen or a company, what you want to know is that if you play by the rules, everyone else plays by the same rules.

ConvergenceRI: Could you give your own definition of why Narragansett Bay is an important part of the innovation ecosystem in Rhode Island?
STONE: I really appreciate you asking that question, because there is a wealth of expertise and innovation going on today around technology and policy, all focused on clean water and environmental health.

The Narragansett Bay Commission, our neighbor to the north here, has done an extraordinary job in applying new technology to lessen the release of nitrogen into Narragansett Bay.

There is a company in Portsmouth that’s developed a process for removing nitrogen from the wastewater effluent stream and recapturing it.

We have a lot of innovation here in Rhode Island. The state coastal agency, the Coastal Resource Management Council, has done a good job at employing various planning tools to resolve potential conflicts over the use of the Bay.

The CRMC’s public policy planning tools allow for more efficient development in selected areas where development is appropriate.

ConvergenceRI: Such as with offshore wind?
STONE: Yes, with offshore wind.

You know, we have a whole economic ecosystem built around sonar and acoustics, Navy related applications, and shipbuilding.

These companies are part of the “Blue Economy,” as some call it. Those are the things that we should encourage. I think it’s important that those don’t get lost in the shuffle.

ConvergenceRI: How does climate change and resiliency fit into the picture, related to the proposed plans to fill in 31 acres of Narragansett Bay.
STONE: It takes us in the wrong direction. There is no question that filling in the upper part of Narragansett Bay, which is shaped like funnel, will exacerbate flooding from storm events and rising tides.

[In the future], we’re going to see more storm events and we’re going to see higher tides. [Filling in 31 acres of Narragansett Bay] is a bad direction to take, the wrong step to take.

Climate change issues affect other aspects of the health of the Bay: water temperature, precipitation patterns, all of which are going to put some of the gains that we’ve seen in Narragansett Bay at risk, if we aren’t careful about how we invest our public resources.

We need to invest wisely in cleaning water, removing pollutants from the water, protecting natural shoreline areas and ensuring the health of salt marshes that help to buffer storm surges. All of these are really important to the Bay today, and they will become more important in the future.

It’s important that people recognize that Narragansett Bay is a shared resource – shared by boaters, fishermen, the public, the shipping industries and port facilities. It’s always been that way, from the earliest days of the founding of this state.

We recognized that and we respect that. We’re not opposed to expanding port operations. What we are opposed to is filling of the Bay.

Editor's Note: One day after ConvergenceRI publlsihed this story, and with it, a link to the entire Vickerman study detailing the plans to fill in 31 acres of Narragansett Bay, the first time full details of the study had been published, ProvPort reached an agreement with Save The Bay disavow any future plans to fill the Bay.

It is always difficult to know which axe blow felled the tree, but ConvergenceRI would like to believe that its in-depth reporing on the issue helped to change ProvPort's position, which previously had been to call Save The Bay "uninformed."

In the news release announcing its change of plans, ProvPort spokesman Bill Fischer said: “We have assured Save The Bay that future phases of our expansion plans have been abandoned. The information and the plan we present to voters will no longer involve future filling or wharfing out over the bay and will be limited to land-based expansion.”

In addition, ProvPort also assured Save The Bay that no state money will be used in a way that provides an economic windfall for those who have violated environmental laws, according the news release.