[enviclash]

I only have concerns about the coastal connection point being in an environmentally sensitive area, e.g. a wetland.

[odensc]

Not to mention the impacts on the people who live in the communities on the coast that these cables often land at. See what has happened with Facebook's new cable in Oregon: https://oregoncoastalliance.org/facebook-proposes-undersea-c...

[jonas21]

Sorry, what were the impacts other than a few weeks of construction noise? The cable is buried under the beach and the seafloor until you get half a mile offshore. According to the link, they left some drilling equipment 60 feet underground, and that's a "disaster"?

This site seems to be dedicated to opposing any sort of development along the Oregon coast, so I guess it's not surprising they didn't like this.

[Fomite]

"...and at least 6,500 gallons of drilling fluid" feels considerably more significant than the "drill bit" in another comment.

[gavanm]

I wonder if it could be a net positive for the connection point areas.

I'm speculating that areas with undersea cables are often marked as "no anchor" zones due to the risk of damage (in areas where such practices are followed).

So the drop in damage from anchors and extended motor boat presence might eventually outweigh the initial damage from laying the cable.

[enviclash]

The idea of net positive is flawed, as multiple local net positives from different disruptions (other than cables) might lead to deterioration of global quality thresholds for sensitive issues, e.g. chains of wetlands required for migratory birds. These global connections are most often unwisely accounted.