AB 525 Strategic Plan - Fishing Community Engagement Meeting (Offshore Wind)

Morro Bay In-Person Meeting June 8th, 2023

Attendees: Bill Blue (Comm Fisherman), Jenna (Meeting Mediator Kearns & West), Jasmin (Admin assistant taking notes for Kearns & West), Chris Voss, Alan Alward (Alan Alward), Mark Azein? (Comm Fisherman)i, Ted Schiafone (Comm Fisherman), Jeremiah Obrien (Comm Fisherman), Steve Sheiblaur, Scott Flint (CA Energy Commission), Eli Harland, Abby Writer (NEPA Coordinator for BOEM), Ingrid Biedror (BOEM, Jennifer Miller (BOEM, Chief of Renewable Energy Section), Matt Kohler (State Lands Commission), Danielle Mullaney (CA Energy Commission), Eric Wilkins (Fish & Wildlife Marine Region based in SLO), Rachel McDonald, Daniel Thorresson (Comm Fisherman), Erica Crawford (CEO of Morro Bay Chamber), Jeff French (Comm Fisherman), Chris Kubiak (Cable liaison)

Notes: Ava Schulenberg

Meeting began at 1:14PM


Objectives:

  • Discuss CA’s approach and progress on the strategic plan for Assembly Bill 525

  • Overview of suitable sea space and introduce newly identified sea space areas,

  • Provide updates on Condition 7c working group

  • Acknowledge previous input on offshore wind by fishermen

  • Answer clarifying questions

  • Discuss:

    • Fisheries impacts and strategies to address these

    • Suitable sea space 

Agenda:

  • Introductions, objectives, and agenda overview

  • State updates on offshore wind assembly bill 525 strategic plan development and 7c working group

    • What we’ve heard from fishermen 

  • Discuss Fishermen questions, concerns, and input on AB 525:

    • Fisheries impacts and strategies to address these

    • Suitable sea space

  • Next steps


AB 525 Strategic Plan: Development of OSW in Federal Waters:

  • Strategic Plan chapters must address:

    • Identification of additional suitable sea space

    • Focused actions for economic and workforce development and identification of port space and infrastructure

    • Assess transmission planning investments and upgrades

    • Permitting roadmap for offshore wind energy facilities and related infrastructure

    • Identify potential impacts to fisheries, native american and indigenous peoples, coastal resources, and national defense, and develop strategies to address those potential impacts 


AB 525 Strategic Plan: Interim Reports:

  • Completed interim AB 525 Reports to be included in final strategic plan:

    • Interim report: Offshore wind energy development off the CA Coast maximum feasible capacity and megawatt Planning Goals for 2030 and 2045

      • Aspirational goals of 2-5 gigawatts by 2030, 25 GW by 2045

      • Adopted at the August 2022 business meeting

    • Interim report: Preliminary assessment of the economic benefits of offshore wind related to seaport investments and workforce development needs and standards

      • Adopted at the February 2023 business meeting

      • Interim Report: Permitting roadmap

        • Adopted at the may 10 2023 business meeting

        • Lays out potential permitting approaches

        • Will further develop in stakeholder process for final strategic plan chapter


AB 525 Report Webpage and Contact Information:

  •  CA Energy Commission contacts:

    • AB 525 Report and Inquiries:

    • Sea Space:

    • AB 525 Report Webpage

      • Reports and studies

      • Past and upcoming workshops and meeting information

    • 17-Misc-01 Docket:

      • File Comments on AB 525 and offshore wind


Fishermen Concerns about Impacts - Key Themes:

  • Challenges with sharing space (navigational challenges and conflicts, direct competition for existing facilities or takeover of shoreline, vessel traffic and congestion, safety and accountability, protection of ocean floor, noise pollution, etc.)

  • Potential loss of fishing grounds and fish (due to changes in wildlife behavior, biomes, ocean water temperature and salinity, etc.)

  • Socioeconomic impacts (due to potential loss in fishing grounds as a result of surveying, constructions, and operations of OSW)

  • Habitat and wildlife impacts (behavioral changes and impacts to ecosystems)

  • Impacts during construction/installation and decommissioning phases (decision-making, oversight, regulation, enforcement, etc.)

  • Need for data and scientific studies to inform OSW decision-making (processes may move forward before studies are completed)

Strategies and Suggestions from Fishermen - Key Themes:

  • Seasonal restrictions (on cable installation, movement of equipment, routine maintenance or removal, etc.)

  • Inventory, serialization and broadcasting location/movement signals (for all vessels, barges, scows, each individual floating turbine unit, etc.)

  • Offshore wind development informed by good and long-term scientific studies and monitoring

  • Use a variety of fishing-related datasets

  • Impact fees or community benefit agreements

  • Ongoing engagement and communication with fishermen in every sector (to improve data, work directly with developers, and representation in decision-making, etc.)

  • Fishermen stakeholder group or committee 


Sea Space Identification: Scott Flint

  • Identification of suitable sea space: Process

    • Identify wind potential (identify wind and technical characteristics and assumptions 

    • Screen with available data (analyze and assess FOSW potential with best available data and information)

    • Summarize results (describe, characterize, and summarize results)

  • Discussion:

    • Chris Voss asks where the money from the lease sales go? Jennifer Miller says BOEM is not directly providing funds to the state, the funds go directly into the U.S. Treasury. Eli says for AB 525 last cycle some funds were given to the OPC and other councils/commissions like the CA energy commission which hired a consultant and those funds support outreach today but also. 

      • Chris asks if they’ve already been placed in a general federal fund. Jen says yes it’s all been paid in full as of June 1, 2023.

    • Danny asks why we’re already paying for technology that we haven't’ tested yet and why are we allowing spatial loss again for technology that hasn’t been proven? Scott says the technology is constantly being deployed and there’s testing being done all over the world. He says it takes 3-5 years to fully complete a study loop and everything that’s going on informs what will happen and how things will evolve. Danny confirms we’ll sell more leases then before one turbine is on the water? Scott says that’s based on how we currently move on the places already leases and their reports will inform the legislature on how it’s going. Danny asks about the take permit - Scott says the energy commission is not a permitting entity for OSW, that’s all done through the coastal commission and its BOEM jurisdiction in federal waters. Scott says we’re a little ways away from take permits at this time. Eric says a take permit for marine mammals would come from NMFS and that would come after the construction operation plans when we find out how many turbines will be implanted. Danny says when the number is hit for the take permit, that number is just going to go up, once it’s there it’s there. Alan agrees with Danny and says what you need is caution because once they’re in you can’t just pull them out. Jen says leases can be fined if they’re not meeting their obligations. 


Example of a Floating OSW Development: (insert structure graphic later from online)

  • Discussion:

    • Danny says they should have a graphic of a crab pot next to these diagrams and that way everyone can see which one will have a higher entanglement risk - He also has concerns around if something like a whale does become entangled, it’s not easy to just remove those turbines like you would be able to move your crab gear etc. it’s an enormous thing to manipulate with those kind of risks. Jen says BOEM has done an entanglement study that focused on whales and is available online. She says as the developers are looking at these structures and constructing them, they are very susceptible to change and these models are not final. 

    • Bill asks if the permit comes before the work begins? The answer is yes.

    • Jeff asks about leases and Jen says there are 27 active leases on the east coast and there are a lot of  ups and downs - She says if a lessee wants to relinquish their lease it goes back to BOEM but that’s less common than lessees selling their lease which is more common; It’s an investment. 


California Offshore Wind Resource: (waiting on map graphic, cannot be found online)

  • The blue patches are the leases that have already been sold


California AB 525 Offshore Wind Sea Space: (waiting on map graphic, cannot be found online)


AB 525 Sea Space - North Coast: (waiting on map graphic, cannot be found online)


AB 525 Sea Space - Commercial Fisheries: (waiting on map graphic, cannot be found online)

  • Discussion:

    • Danny asks to put an overlay of other MPAs and closures so you can see a more accurate percentage of our spatial loss as fishermen


AB 525 Sea Space - South Central Coast: (insert map graphic later from online)

  • Discussion:

    • Alan asks the depth of the orange zone? Scott is not sure but he thinks it goes as deep as 2600 meters-3900 meters in the outer orange

  • Commercial Fisheries (waiting on map graphic, cannot be found online)

    • Discussion:

      • Steve says he does not see the Diablo Canyon call area? Scott says they haven’t counted that toward their goal in their current calculation because that area is not needed for them to reach their goal. Jen says the department of defense has concerns about diablo canyon which is why they have not moved forward. Scott also says some of the data they’ve collected in 2016 shows it’s a more important habitat area than they thought.

      • Alan says the Diablo canyon call area is a very important fishing area and emphasizes that the fishing community is very worried about it being removed



Condition 7C Working Group Update - Holly Wyer, CA Coastal Commission (Rachel MacDonald covering for her):

  • Coastal Commission & Offshore Wind:

    • Role: Reviewing federal actions and permits under the coastal zone management act

    • Two reviews:

      • 1st review - before lease sale

      • 2nd review - before construction is approved

    • Approval of the lease sale last year

      • With 7 conditions

      • Condition 7 focuses on fishing

  • Condition 7C Working Group:

    • This working group is called for as part of Condition 7C

    • Focus is on current lessees and upcoming projects

    • We will soon be looking for fishing representatives

      • Nomination materials with more information can be found online

  • Contact info: [email protected]

  • Discussion:

    • Steve says he’d like to give the 7C “prequel” - He says in CA you’ve got some strong liaison committees and the commission staff is aware of what’s good and bad about how these things are run. He says leading up to this, the people of Morro Bay have been working on this with Castle Wind and in this process there was a lot of checking in with the coastal staff, and so out of that conversation and before this action, a fishing community benefit agreement template was created and there was an industry letter that supported this template and the letter was signed by 17 commercial fishing associations up and down the state.Steve says a problem is that impacts are going to take place sooner than we’d be able to complete the coastal commission process of them reaching their conclusions. Rachel says they’ve provided the Castle Wind agreement and asks if she can docket it so it’s public information. The fishermen in the room say yes she can docket the template so long as each port understands that it may have regional variability based on where the lease is taking place. 

    • Chris Voss speaks to the benefits of pre-existing cable committee relationships with fishermen - For example he speaks to the South Bay Cable Committee and how they benefit all ports with their successes. Just for example, guys from SB fish up here in Morro Bay and guys from Morro Bay fish in SB, we are a highly connected community so when some of us benefit from something, we all benefit and when something disrupts us, it disrupts all of us, hence why we’re here in this room.


Discuss Fishermen Questions, Concerts, and Input on AB 525: Open Discussion

  • Chris says as we have had to adapt to spatial loss over time that has a cumulative impact on all of our ability to thrive in the areas that are left to fish. Not just offshore wind that we’re dealing with, it’s 30x30, the Chumash Sanctuary, Aquaculture; It’s death by a thousand cuts that essentially is our ability to survive.

  • Abby asks about the context of the Castle Wind Agreement: Alan says they approached fishermen and worked on it for 7 years until both sides were happy, and then it didn’t even become useful. He describes Kenny Bates creating CFRA (Commercial Fishermen’s Resiliency Association, got funding by OPC) and how CFRA will be very useful going forward because we all need to be resilient as we face these challenges. 

    • Chris says we are all involved in CFRA and we are most concerned with what the state does in terms of mitigation and how that plays out in agreements with lessees.

  • Steve says in CA we could do things differently and a lot better if we just focused on regions

  • Scott asks how the fishermen in the room see the 7C committee working? Do you see it as taking the template Ken has and refining it and having the state report it? How do you see it working? Bill says they are absolutely done with their agreement and have spent enough time for their region, not sure what other regions want to do but they are done working on it. 

    • Danny asks how the site surveys are going on the east coast right now? Jen says they have had some conflicts with fishermen but for the most part are able to coexist. Fishermen were trying to fish in the survey areas so the surveyors went offline and didn’t resume until they were done pulling their gear

    • Danny asks about the whales over there and the ones recently coming ashore - Jen says they have not found any direct ties to the recent whale mortality and offshore wind. She says the survey boats have to have a 360 view of the vessel at all times, they have PSOs at all times, speed limits, exclusion zones, it’s very whale friendly. They do use site scan sonar. Apparently, if a whale is spotted, the survey stops. 

      • Alan says there is an undeniable correlation between the recent whale mortality on the east coast and these surveys - He says the surveys started in Dec, when the whale deaths started, he thinks maybe the sound of all those boats or frequencies they’re emitting is disorienting them and they don’t know how to escape so they’re not sharp and then get struck by a vessel or whatever it is they suspect caused the “blunt force trauma” that Jen mentions, and then they die and wash up on the beach. He says it’s going to be way worse on the west coast because our water is deeper. He says whales don’t use their eyes, they use their ears, so if you start hammering them so hard with sonar, you’ll have dead whales. As fishermen, they feel the whale issues are not being studied enough and there’s not enough investigation on the impacts. Ingrid says there have been higher whale mortality rates since 2016 and there are all kinds of other industries that could cause harm to sea life (i.e. more cargo ships with demand during the pandemic). Danny says, so basically Ingrid is blaming every other industry except their surveys? Ingrid says no she’s just saying it’s possible that it could be other things. Alan says, can you seriously deny that there has been an uptick since December? Alan emphasizes that when he was a diver, he learned a lot about the importance of frequencies. Ingrid has a master’s degree and has studied whales, but if you think about who has spent more time on the water and been around whales in reality longer, it’s Alan, the fisherman, not Ingrid. 

  • Danny says that what he doesn’t understand is that OSW is supposed to be a no-impact energy source and yet every direction you turn, it’s highly impacting everything. He emphasizes, how many people in this room are being paid? We’re not. He says this is essentially just a sales pitch. Abby says there’s no such thing as no-impact energy and they’re trying to find solutions that combat climate change. Danny asks about resources needed to even produce this? Like steel, fuel, etc.? Abby says yes the studies are considerate of cradle to grave. Rachel says life cycle analysis is important and she will forward Danny the answers since this came up in another meeting. Rachel says the focus of OSW is meeting 2045 goals in relation to climate change, but they are also cognizant of the other impacts that the production phase emits. 

  • Jeff says we have a lot of solar and wind onshore, where are we in terms of percentage onshore? Why do we have to go into the ocean? How much is enough? Rachel says SB 100 (the main legislative adopted policy for the net neutrality by 2045 for emissions) is what’s driving OSW, but to answer the question, Eli says the state is at about 34% geothermal, solar, and wind. Rachel says the problem with solar is that we have more solar during the day that we need but it drops off at 4PM, so we export excess energy to Arizona and Nevada, but we need it more at night so that’s an issue. The desire is to have a diverse portfolio of resources so as to not put all our eggs in one basket with solar for example. Rachel also says batteries are coming too. Jeff says it feels like we’re putting the cart before the horse.

  • Scott asks what the fishermen think is the best resiliency strategy? Mark says when you displace fishermen they go someplace else and they displace the guys that were already there so you’re pushing us all around. Mark says it’s super important what you do to the infrastructure (i.e. fuel dock, ice house, etc.) because it’s hurtful to the community and it’s more far-reaching than you think; The cascading effects are huge. Alan answers Scott’s question about mooring systems and different types of gear - He says when he’s pulling traps, he’ll be drifting and it’ll be a couple hours before he’s done and if something is on the ground like cables, there will undoubtedly be a tangle. He says the same is true for groundfish gear and even hook and line when fishing for deepwater fish - He says there is absolutely no compatible fishery that will complement the implementation of offshore wind - All fishermen in the room agree. Bill says because of this (Alan’s point), he sees the whole thing as an exclusion zone overall and believes fishermen likely won’t be able to get anywhere near any site and it’ll eliminate massive amounts of fishing grounds. 

    • Steve says that there is a list of about 45 impacts with a mitigation section that has been made available and it will be submitted before the 6/16 deadline and it will be signed by anywhere from 15-20 fishermen. He encourages the non-fishermen in the room (and the fishermen, though they are already familiar), to closely read this document

  • Alan expresses concern around site surveys and how they impact larva etc. and the survey might go on for 2 years who knows; His point is that the impacts of surveys on fish population needs to be better studied. He also says he is a firm believer that we still need some gas production; He says wind and solar won’t be helpful when there’s no wind and no sun and there’s a hole in the system, so it’s kind of a myth that OSW will fill this hole, gas is really the only economic answer, though it’s not as carbon friendly, wind is not the only answer to our needs.

  • Mark says the important takeaway again is when you displace fishermen, you displace everything, not just us, it’s the restaurants, etc. the trickle down effects are enormous. Chris emphasizes that we are food producers, this is essential down the road. 


Meeting adjourned at 4:10PM