CFSB Board Meeting Minutes - September 27th, 2024
Attendees: Brian Aresco, Grant Downie (North Coast urchin diver), Ryan Freedman (NOAA), Sean Hastings (NOAA), Tristin McHugh (NOAA), Shane Robinson, Shaun Roche, Ray Kennedy, Jason Woods, Mary Nishimoto, Harry Liquornik, Kim Selkoe, Chris Voss, Bernard Friedman, Miles Wallace, David Lamar, Mike Nelson, Ben Hyman, Blake Hermann, Gary Burke, Jeff Maassen, John Hoadley, Tony Luna, Andy Rasmussen, Adrian Stimson, Jeff Hepp, Jaime Diamond, Michael Harrington, Matt Diamond, Sarah Wallace
Notes: Ava Schulenberg
Agenda:
*Housekeeping, time limits, 3 minute maximum policy on individual comments
Channel Islands Marine Sanctuary Reps Explain Shark Research Guidelines - 10 min
Urchin Project/Kelp Restoration - 15 min
SBCC Symposium Recap - 10 min
30x30 Monterey Meeting Recap, Chris Voss - 5 min
MPA Collab Meeting Recap, Blake Hermann - 30 min
Cable Committee Phone call with PCFFA
Harbor Festival - 5 Min
Commercial Fishing Slip Policy and CUDA Dock Update - 5 min
NOAA FEIS Proposal Chumash Sanctuary - 10 min
Offshore Wind Update - 5 Min
Other
Kim starts the meeting at 3:03PM upstairs in the harbor classroom.
Agenda:
*Housekeeping, time limits, 3 minute maximum policy on individual comments
Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary Reps Explain Shark Research Guidelines - 10 min (Sean Hastings and Ryan Freedman)
Kim thought this would be a good idea to have Sean and Ryan come speak about this new chumming project that’s coming up because she heard from a researcher in OR who’s looking for chum to do a shark tagging study next week so she reached out to Ryan to get more info about the coordination on communication with the fishing community and he thought this would be a good opportunity to review the bigger picture of how they have set up this program and their communication around it
Sean Hastings introduces himself - He works for CINMS/NOAA and has an office in the Waterfront Center / Maritime Museum and encourages folks to come stop by his office any time.
Sean says they have 2 shark research projects that have been going on in the Sanctuary - 1 of which is coming up in the next week (that Kim mentioned) and Ryan will discuss that work further below; Sean says they have permit authority along with the state and the state has permitted both of these projects through a Scientific Collection Permit and they (NOAA) have permitted both of these projects and they want to describe what the research is about and what the permitting is, and also their communication with the fishing community about this work
Ryan says there’s 2 sets of researchers right now working on a couple different sets of species and he and Sean have been working with these groups applying permit conditions that they have depending on what species are there and overlap with commercial fishermen
Ryan says what’s coming next week specifically is primarily research on pelagic species like Mako, Blue and Thresher sharks. Permit conditions only allow research fishing 1+nautical mile offshore the island shorelines to avoid overlap with commercial diving. Ryan states that even though these are different projects, the White Shark tagging permit conditions still apply:
No research operations can occur within 1 nautical mile when another ocean user / fisherman is in the water. If research is already underway and a fisherman or another boat comes into the 1 mile area, the researchers have to establish contact with the fisherman/boat
Sean asks Ryan to give some more details on who this group is and why they’re doing this project, Chris also asks who is funding the project because that’s always an important question to ask: Ryan says this project consists of 2 researchers coming from Oregon State University’s “Big Fish Lab” and they’re looking for pregnant females within the Mako/Thresher Shark population because this has apparently been a big gap in how they understand how population is working, funded by ICCAT (The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas); They’re also looking for general habitat use because there’s been a gap in tagging data in the past
Their long-term goal is to have birth alert tags so they can track where birthing happens to establish birthing/breeding grounds (again primarily focusing on Makos/Threshers, but Ryan says they have some interest in eventually looking at Sevengill Sharks too)
This project will be a week long starting next week, targeting areas offshore at the islands depending on the weather, they will also be fishing in other areas in the channel as well
Ryan then speaks to White Shark research and gives a recap: There’s more sharks at the islands, large adult white sharks; The 2 historic populations have been known to exist at the Farallon Islands and at Guadalupe Island, so the presence of large adults we see more and more, they’re trying to understand habitat use and if it’s sustained, what part of the population is being interchanged with both of the traditional old school adult aggregations has been a big question.
They are getting a lot of sharks from the Farallons coming down to our islands and a couple from Guadalupe coming up as well, so it’s beginning to look like there’s a mix of these populations and they’re trying to understand what’s driving those changes and what’s driving the connectivity.
What they’re seeing in terms of habitat use to date for White Sharks is that they’re moving between the islands and Surf Beach, it seems to be one continual population but there’s high levels of transfer of individuals between there and adult aggregations.
There also seems to be some sex segregation for that species; They’re still working on sorting out why but for now the males and females seem to be at opposite ends of the channel and appear at different times of the year.
Permit Conditions/Safety on the Water
Sean says if someone wants to do research in the Sanctuary, they only need a sanctuary research permit if the research would otherwise violate sanctuary regulations (e.g. they want to put tags behind the dorsal fin on the sharks and chum in the water to be able to do so which is considered a “discharge” which isn’t allowed) When considering permitting research the sanctuary must determine if the scientific information is worth violating the sanctuary regulation; They have to look at the short and long-term effects and factor in if the researchers/institutions are credible, do they have good resources etc.
Sean says in these two current projects, they are reputable researchers and are well-funded and goes into some details about each:
Sean says they are not allowing this new pelagic study group from OSU to do any white shark tagging, but they don’t have anyone studying the pelagic sharks which is why they are allowing that, to close the information gap
To separate ocean conflict with divers, Sean said the researchers can only tag sharks outside 1+ mile of the islands
The researchers are only allowed to use 100 lbs of locally sourced bait/fish per day total
They have to let Sean/NOAA know where they’re going to work and then Sean will tell us where and when that is and what the results were
Shane asks if this is the same group as the Carp white shark tagging team? Ryan says no that is Chris Lowe’s group with CSULB; That’s a separate project to the pelagic tagging group
Shane says he has heard that they are chumming at Carp but Ryan says all of the shore-based juvenile shark tagging efforts there are done by drone, not with chum; They’ll have a drone flying from shore and the drone will fly and hover and land over a shark and then follow up on it quickly and tag it; This is their preferred method over chumming
Shane still expresses concern over habituation and sharks associating boats with food; Sean says they limit at the islands the number of days per year, the number of animals, the amount of chum. To date, the local white shark research has only been 7 days over the past 8 years which should stifle any habituation concerns
Gary says he knows a lot about the locations of these species and the seasonality matters - Ryan says the pelagic studies are going to aim to have multi-year studies, shooting for summer (June-October), and with the white shark studies, they typically target July-end of September which coincides when they have detections for them at the islands
Please contact me (Ava) directly if you have any follow up questions - I’d be happy to connect you with Sean or Ryan
Urchin Project/Kelp Restoration - 15 min
Kim says Grant Downie from Ft Bragg and Tristin from TNC in Ft Bragg are on this call. Kim was just with them earlier this week and they’re working on this project for purple urchin removal; Tristan invited Kim up there to get their perspectives and she left very excited to do this project
Kim just learned that we got a $315,000 grant to start the work from Wendy Schmidt’s private foundation that Kim applied for a few months ago; They are a family who lives part-time in Santa Barbara and they want to help fund projects that involve restoring our local ecosystems
Tristan gives a broad overview:
Tristan is the Kelp Project Director with TNC and is based in Mendocino/Fort Bragg
That area has experienced a 96% loss in under a decade which has had a wake of ramifications as we’re all aware with habitat loss and loss of industry opportunity for they harvest of red urchin
She began her work in 2018 to understand where kelp was persisting and where efforts to remove purples needed to be done and then in years following, like in 2020, they had their first big state-led project to start understanding how commercial urchin divers could help reduce urchin densities down to these theoretical thresholds of about 2 urchin per sq meter; That low amount is the goal because you want a low population of urchin to flip an kelp baren state to a forest; She did that work with Grant Downie
They are now working with the Sea Urchin Commission to manage the diver workforce and enlist divers; They want to understand where they can create a climate-ready workforce while also creating opportunities for those who have been impacted by these kelp losses across the region
They are working with bull kelp up there which is slightly different but the concepts are the same
Tristin emphasizes that nothing can replace the value a commercial diver has on being able to prescribe a treatment to a troubled ecosystem
Tristin discusses a top level view (pictured below) of Big River/Portuguese Beach in Mendocino which is a site that fulfills the 4% of that 96% loss which withstood all the urchin impacts, that’s until 2022 when urchin moved in to the site and that resulted in an 84% loss in 2 years
Grant Downie introduces himself and congratulates CFSB on getting some funding to do a kelp restoration project in SB and congratulates CFSB on having an ED like Kim – He said they don’t have an organization like CFSB up there and he wishes there was more of a community where they could all come together like we do down here; He says he’s been doing kelp restoration since 2018, he’s a commercial urchin diver, he still harvests product, he does urchin ranching, he’s also been doing urchin trapping which after 3 years of doing it as an SEP he wishes they could move forward with gear adoption so others could do it (he says it works for restoration efforts and would help free up time for divers to focus on harvesting product for consumption/sale)
Grant’s email address for anyone who wants to contact him directly is [email protected]
Kim says we will talk more about this at the next board meeting and once we get the funding (which should be within about a month after contracts are put in place), we’ll know more about our timeline of getting activities going (likely start the work spring 2025)
Jeff Maassen asks if there’s any discussion about outplanting kelp like using seeded line or sporebags to encourage kelp recovery in areas where divers are doing removals; Kim says this pilot project is supposed to be really streamlined and not have to deal with permitting, which something like that would require
Kim says we were collaborators on a proposal submitted last week by the Santa Monica Bay Foundation to CDFW Oil Spill Response Grant Funding Program; They are proposing a 5-year project for $1.3M focused on San Miguel Island 10 acres and she thinks their project will include culling and that would be the opportunity to dovetail outplanting; We would be a major beneficiary if it gets approved, allocating $400k to our divers to do the work so we’ll see if/when we get that funding; We can keep going after more funding but we need to take things one step at a time
Maassen says the MPAs without any kelp serve as an excellent control for the outplanting of kelp and secondarily to that the MPAs according to the MLPA are to provide spillover to ensure sustainable fisheries outside the reserves
Miles asks Grant if they’re doing any outplanting methods right now like spore bags or green gravel techniques? Grant says at their Big River Site/Portugese Beach they have a newly developed technique for outplaning that Tristin will expand upon and he says his part of that is that they don’t have any universities up there on the coast so being one of the only vessels with a high insurance policy that universities require, he is mainly a vessel for hire captain, which he says is still great to be involved
Kim says their device is called ARKEV (pictured below) and is slightly different than how we might want to do things down here; Tristin says the motive for restoration in the SB area is that we know commercial divers are effective in reducing urchin densities, we know they have the same gear types and are having similar issues with finding viable product so the first year in this project is to help understand what it will look like to reduce urchin populations down to those thresholds - Can it be achieved? If so, does that solicit some type of vegetative response? The name of the game is start at the basic level of mobilization and shared interest and then build out all the different techniques
SBCC Symposium Recap - 10 min
We had this Blue Economy symposium on the same day unfortunately as the SB MPA Collab meeting; We’re partnering with SBCC to get space set up for storage and partner with them on potential educational partnerships
Mike Nelson said it was a success and as a result of that, they’ve already expanded the footprint of the site we can consider for these purposes; So right now, we’re moving forward with a site analysis and the president of CC joined our recent meeting and told us to move forward
Kim says within the next few months we have to make decisions on staff time put toward this project; Do we want to target big grants that could help bring this to fruition? Many of the grant opportunities focus on workforce training and not facilities, so we hope SBCC will take the lead on those.
30x30 Monterey Meeting Recap, Chris Voss - 5 min
Chris drove to Monterey for the recent 30x30 workshop a couple weeks ago
He made it clear in his workshop group that as fishermen, we are being assaulted by a myriad of different initiatives designed to close additional area while we represent some of the most highly regulated fishermen in the world in the areas we are able to fish in
A couple folks have asked if we submitted public comment on the 30x30 Draft Decision-Making Framework for Coastal Waters deadline (which is today at 5PM PST), and the answer is yes, CFSB signed onto the Alliance's letter that was submitted for public comment on the 30x30 Framework, but, as mentioned at recent board meetings, we encourage all individual fishermen to submit too if you're able to. If you choose to do so in this final hour, you can email [email protected] to submit your comment; We will continue to stay close on this topic.
For context, "After public comment and tribal consultation closes, staff will work to incorporate public comment and feedback received into a finalized framework. Staff anticipates bringing a final framework, with potential preliminary determinations for candidate 30×30 Conservation Areas, to the Council for consideration and possible adoption at the December 9, 2024 Council Meeting." - We will be at this meeting either in person or Via Zoom.
Here is the recreational fishing conglomerate letter if you are curious what they submitted (thanks for sharing Blake!); And if you have not yet signed BHA's petition of opposition, you can do so here (CFSB has already signed).
MPA Collab Meeting Recap, Blake Hermann - 30 min
Blake brings up his presentation and says it will cover the local MPAs and where we are now/how they’ve changed/some arguments and counterarguments
Blake says timeline wise, the petitions are plugging along the state process; The bin 1 petitions are looking like they’ll be done pretty quickly; The goal right now is to have a decision by the December 2024 meeting that will be approved by the February 2025 meeting (the actual actions); Blake says the closest bin 1 petition to our area is the Swamis petition in North County San Diego (they want to add a 300ft expansion that will devastate their local fisheries)
Blake says all of the bin 2 petitions that are local to here look like they will be looked at next year pretty extensively; It sounds like they want to hammer out the process quickly but it might bleed into 2026
Only 1 petition so far has been amended (the Anacapa petition) - Jason asks what this change was? Blake says there were 2 petitions at Anacapa, the one that changed is the one that is trying to close the SMCA on the west end of the island or make it closed to a longer list of gear types or a depth closure to 100 ft or about 17 fathoms and they’ve amended it so they’re not trying to close the whole thing, they just want to look at commercial lobster, so they’re focused only on that now
Sean says at the islands, the protected area network is in state waters and it goes offshore out to the edge of the sanctuary at 6 miles, so there’s state and federal water components to it and he says Blake’s petition is the only one that crosses over at Gull Island, Footprint, and Santa Barbara Island, requesting changes to the state waters side and federal waters side, so when it crosses over that 3-mile state line, then it becomes a sanctuary regulation so Blake’s petition requires review by the Fish and Game Commission (“FGC”) and by NOAA and what NOAA has said at commission meetings is that they will review any potential changes in sync with the FGC; They designed the network together and manage the network together so they don’t want to be reviewing anything at different times independently
Sean says he thinks it is ambitious to think they would get through bin 2 by the end of next year because there’s ~20 petitions state wide that would require 80 different regulatory actions if changs go in and that’s a lot for the CDFW to manage; As a government employee, he is thinking at least 2 years
Blake says he was surprised that they wanted to hammer out the bin 1 petitions so quickly
Harry asks Sean if the advisory council could make a request to the sanctuary to run newer economic modeling on the sites because what’s there is going to be dated but it’s all we have right? Harry says if you look at the Santa Rosa proposal there (in Blake’s presentation), that should give the decision makers an idea of how messed up not putting guardrails on this thing is. Sean says as it was designed, it included economic and habitat modeling and fishermen input, etc.; They’re looking at proposed changes in the same way (e.g. what information is available today, what came out of their own management plan review, the decadal review, etc.) and overall just want to have a comprehensive take on things because a lot goes into a change so it needs to be a holistic approach; Sean says anything in state waters is for the FGC to look at (that’s their turf) and he thinks/hopes they will also look at things holistically
Harry says they put together the fishing working group and they should still have access to that model
Harry says they went through 8 months of looking at maps with every gear type involved, sport, commercial, everything, just with the islands to come up with what exists now it’s exhausting, but he says eventually when you start running these models, it’s a good system and eventually when somebody would draw a map and you’d hear a bunch of fishermen groan, they didn’t even wait to model it they just said ok what do we need to change because we (fishermen) have the ability to look at the map, and say, “That’s gonna screw us,” so within that we had fishing working groups that made fishing-based maps and the conservation community had their own set of maps, Harry said they knew they’d be very far apart, and worked from there
Harry says the Channel Islands one was the most extensive, and the MLPA one was pretty weak, it all took a pretty long time to do though is the point
Blake says this is a general powerpoint that covers an overview of everything from Pt Sal to San Diego
Petition 34 covers closures at Catalina and Pt. Buchon - This petition wants to combine the nearshore/offshore zones into 1 area and restrict all gear types except for spear; Their logic is that there is an enforcement problem and we need to be able to reasonably enforce these areas and spear is easy to enforce vs. hook and line; Up north they want to make that whole Pt. Buchon area a no-take zone and say the economic benefits from leaving it open aren’t worth it to leave it open, and they claim no one is really fishing in that area; Reach out to Blake directly for counter reasoning info (his email is [email protected])
Chris emphasizes that our position as an organization is in opposition to any new MPAs or changes to existing MPAs that take space away from fishermen and that every one of these petitions needs to be challenged and pushed against its justification (e.g. the Carp Reef petition has no effect on white shark recovery, though the petitioners claim that as their justification, but with no data to support)
Ben asks if CBD (Center for Biological Diversity) is at some of the 30x30 meetings that Chris says NRDC and Oceana are at - Chris says yes
Miles says Environment CA is behind the Rosa petition
Chris brings up again that him and Ava went to the decadal review last year and how he spoke to the commission like a deer in headlights about how fishermen are already limited in where they can fish, and how illogical the petition process would be (would be at the time, March 2023); Chris again emphasizes how aggressively we will oppose any expansions/new proposed closures which is embedded in and justified by the fact that there are so few of us there actually are still commercial fishing and how little impact we are having on biodiversity and ecosystems, and how the MLMA already describes in detail how we are already working aggressively to reduce any impacts we’re having on the marine environment and its ability to produce fish; The take home is that Blake is an incredible source of information and we've got to start elevating our opposition and we’re a long way from being alone
Chris says he is also working on formulating a group that bridges the gap between sport and commercial fishermen to build trusting working relationships with recreational interests creating a collective opposition against expansions, 30x30, etc. and this bond would add more momentum to shut these things down and certainly get the Commission and feds to back down
Sean says there’s a national 30x30 initiative which is basically the same as the state (even though it’s separate) 30% of waters and lands protected by 2030, but he says that’s the extent of it at his level, there’s no marching orders
Miles says there’s an MPA Collab in Solana Beach on 10/2, which is absolutely absurd because that’s the lobster opener so that’s how much they want us to be a part of their decision making process
Chris asks Sean who funds the Collaboratives? Chris asked this question at the SB meeting but was not given an answer - Sean says the development of these MPA Collaboratives was supported by the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and funded by Resources Legacy Fund (RLF) Sean says the Collaborative meetings are a place to learn, listen, and gripe; There’s no regulatory actions, there’s no MPA authority; They do take the message reports back to FGC meetings like everyone else; It’s more a place for community input than it is an action-taking environment
Sean agrees they’re super tone-deaf for them to plan that Solana Beach meeting on the lobster opener day, but he also says there’s not a big consequence/not like we’ll be missing out a ton by not being there
Ben says it seems black and white as to whether or not we should attack the petitions; He asks how can we fundamentally come together with other associations, how can we speak with the press, etc.; What can we do to strategize and strengthen our collective opposition? Ben asks what the next steps are? He says he’s done the FGC/CDFW process with salmon for 14 years now, he’s made public comments until he’s red in the face, but it always seems like it’s too little too late so he wants to know what can we do now ahead of time?
Harry asks when the next FGC meeting is? Chris confirms it’s October 9-10 in Sacramento with a Zoom option (see agenda here - The marine resources topics will be covered on day 1/Wednesday, participation is encouraged by all fishermen, Chris and Ava will be attending on Zoom)
Ben says the Zoom raise hand option is useless and he has tried to raise his hand saying he wants to make a public comment - Blake says you can write in but Ben says he’s done that and wonders who (if anyone) actually reads written comments and who cares?
Chris confirms that we will be present at all upcoming FGC meetings and we will continue to strategize with other associations that we’re a part of (e.g. PCCFA, CFRA, VCCFA, Alliance of Communities for Sustainable Fisheries, etc.) to strengthen our unified opposition in this fight. We have recently participated in a couple KEYT interviews regarding MPAs and will continue to be receptive to future opportunities in order to spread awareness wherever possible. Chris then segues into the PCCFA call that happened last week that Gary was also on (see agenda item 11 below)
Blake says the fight with 30x30 in particular is at the sanctuary level but that’s a whole different conversation because these specific MPA petitions are a drop in the bucket
Mary says when there are changes proposed by the state for within 3 miles for a sanctuary area, does the federal govt have authority in that case? Sean says not at all even though it’s within the sanctuary bounds. Sean says the MPA network 0-3 miles is 100% state jurisdiction, the sanctuary can comment but that’s not their jurisdiction, it’s a commission decision
Mary also asks Sean for other sanctuaries with other proposals being made within state waters within sanctuaries - Is that decision for the local sanctuary or is that coming down from a national sanctuary level as to whether or not they will support or oppose or have a neutral position on a proposal? Sean says they’re tracking the petition process and are reviewing them, and if they decide to give the commission an opinion, that has to be cleared all the way to Washington D.C. because NOAA is federal so they have to get clearance all the way up the chain and right now they’re in review mode, they might not say anything at all
Jaime says for the Channel Islands sanctuary, the Goleta fisheries project and the kelp restoration it was made clear that the sanctuary feels the kelp forests around the islands are very healthy and therefore does not need that type of intervention; So the idea that some of the proposals that are angled directly towards kelp restoration is nonsense
Jaime also says the Chumash Sanctuary proposal will eat up some time because of the back and forth and we don’t know that there will be much interest in expanding that further after the nightmare that folks were put through over the past year to make sure commercial and recreational fishing was allowed, but they do have that on record so that’s helpful
Blake says the Conception MPA petition will fall within the proposed Chumash Heritage National Marine Sanctuary. Any future potential changes to this MPA will be determined by the CA Fish and Game Commissioners. State MPAs within the NMS are under the State’s authority. In CINMS there are MPAs that extend beyond 3 nautical miles (nm)into federal waters under CINMS jurisdiction Review of MPAs within the state and federal waters of CINMS is very much a joint state and federal process; if regulatory changes are warranted the state would take action within state waters (mean high tide to 3 nm offshore)and NOAA within federal waters (3+ nautical miles offshore).
Jeff Maassen wants clarification from Sean about Channel Islands sanctuaries regarding the channel islands kelp conditions are in good shape; Sean says he wants to follow up with Jaime because that’s not what he’s heard; Jeff says the reality is we’re going out there or CFSB is spearheading a project so it would be great to collaborate on that; Jaime says the comment she made is stemmed from the explicit statement from her letter-writing group and they believe the kelp habitat is healthy (there are areas considered kelp barens regardless of the fact that other areas are thriving; kelp health status is extremely location-specific and variable)
Blake says Petition 33 is the only petition covering most of the state - 7 different closures, expanding no-take areas for kelp restoration
Out of the 20, just locally there’s Pt. Sal, Carp Reef, petition 33 is expansions 4 expansions, and 1 new MPA, and the Anacapa one
Miles asks why don’t we petition the petitioners to petition for dead zones? Blake says we’re stuck with the process the way it is now because the ball is already rolling
Ray says when we talk about the Santa Rosa and Gull Island closure, we can’t even drive our boats through there because there’s so much kelp you could walk across it; Blake says this is a good segue into counter arguments
Petition 29, Carp Reef petition aims to aid “larval connectivity and spacing”; Funded by NRDC
There was a deal about Naples and Carp back when the first MPAs were created, so that’s huge counterargument because it’s them going back against their word
Another counter argument for this one is that there are oil taglines in the middle of this proposed area which if they remove those (which they are planning to with the decommissioning process), that’s against the law from a Fish and Game Commission standpoint
Cable Committee Phone call with PCFFA
Chris had a call with PCFFA this past week but had to miss half the call so he asks Gary or Jeff Hepp to weigh in on the state-wide effort on the part of the Cable Committees to essentially fund a more significant organized effort to oppose MPA expansions
Gary says the Cable Committee is looking to fund fishing groups like us, PCCFA, San Diego organizations, the Morro Bay Commercial Fishing Association, etc. to get a united front to fight this thing; They’re still getting organized but have some letters already written
Chris says Lisa Damrosch (the ED of PCCFA) is going to work with Steve Scheiblaur (one of the Directors of the Alliance) to rework a draft letter; That comment period is October 3rd, so we’re going to submit this letter and that’s to the OPC because that’s attacking the state’s effort, so Sean has the language for the International Initiative that the Federal Government is going to use and the state took that language and decided that they were going to be far more aggressive in interpreting how they want in the state of CA so the way the rest of the world interprets 30x30 is going to be way different than what we do here
Blake says the OPC process is still under development but in terms of their exact qualifications, there's a 120 day comment period so they can get feedback and finalize what they’re going to count, it’s pretty solidified but public comment can sway what they can and cannot count; The fight for 30x30 is sanctuaries, whether or not they count is up to the OPC, that hasn’t been fully decided yet; The truth is we’re not 100% sure because it’s still in process
Gary says everyone should read this Ray Hilborn article that basically says there’s no proof that MPAs increase abundance of targeted species/general biodiversity. Here are a couple more of his recent articles
Harbor Festival - 5 Min
We’ve made a strategic decision to alter the way we serve lobster and crab - This year’s harbor festival will have some changes; CFSB will be buying lobster and crab ahead of time and cooking it before the festival starts, so we will be selling plated items that are ready to go; That’s the only update, just wanted to share so everyone is aware of how it will go down this year in case people ask you - We’re trying to avoid the issues we’ve faced in the past with wait times and unhappy customers
The Pieface will be on the poster for this year honoring Mike McCorkle; Angela from the Waterfront Dept. shows the poster and everyone loves how it turned out and are thankful that they chose to commemorate Mike and The Pieface in this way; Please reach out to Ava if you would like a poster
Commercial Fishing Slip Policy and CUDA Dock Update - 5 min - RAN OUT OF TIME, WILL DISCUSS AT NEXT BOARD MEETING
NOAA FEIS Proposal Chumash Sanctuary - 10 min - RAN OUT OF TIME, WILL DISCUSS AT NEXT BOARD MEETING
Offshore Wind Update - 5 Min
Chris says the governor in Oregon recommended BOEM pull the plug on an auction for more wind leases off of Oregon which is a good sign
Chris says being a part of the 7C working group, there’s this recognition, even by the wind reps that there are challenges globally with the viability with what’s proposed off of CA; It’s all over the world but it’s entirely experimental and unique in CA
Some of the largest renewable energy companies on the planet are backing out of the bidding process
Miles asks as far as them deeming a project too risky to recover their initial investments, he heard Vandeburg did a study regarding that looking into doing their own wind farm off the coast and they decided it was too risky and too unknown to bring to fruition
Chris says there is an effort to bring in 4 sq miles to test the giant turbines in that area (this is being put forth by CADEMO), and since this is near us in SB, it’s our responsibility to voice against this to the Coastal Commission
Miles says the ones that went up behind Tranquilion Mtn they’re sending that power all the way to SF; It’s on private land; Chris says Lompoc buys some of that too; Chris says because that’s land-based it’s a different cost model
Harry says Equinor built the north sea so them backing out of this says a lot; Chris says this is a good point
Adrian asks if Chris gets a sense of the 3 Morro Bay companies cooperating/collaborating with one another? Chris says because they’re all independent companies and are competitors, the 7C group was being approached separately at first, but now they’ve organized together to present a unified position to the fishing community, they are claiming that they have to consider antitrust laws when they work together. The 7c process requires them to work together to address OSW impacts on fisheries.
Miles says these turbines will probably create some kind of eddie around the area because it’s flattening the ocean
Miles brings up the exploration study and its impact on whales; Chris says the site survey process is underway, they’re claiming they’re only penetrating a certain amount into the sea floor (30 meters); There’s another concept the 7C group is working on promoting which is to have them share the site survey information and use it to evaluate what impact collecting it might have on fish
Ray emphasizes the electromagnetic field (EMF) impacts again and how all species in the world rely on this for their migration process; One of the components to their lease includes a 5% bid credit. This credit could be used to support a CBA (Community Benefit Agreement).
Ray says we may find ourselves actually in collaboration with some of the environmental groups because there may be more whale deaths, entanglements, groundings, form a turbine project like this than we’ve ever seen
Chris says the other piece of this process from our end as fishermen is in an effort to present a rational position and actually follow the language in some of the enabling legislation that’s pushing this process forward, there’s an adaptive management requirement, so the point he makes repeatedly is that we shouldn’t be selling additional leases in CA until we understand the impact of the 5 leases that exist already.
Ray asks Chris about physical size of these turbines - Chris says nothing has been determined, but they have to have an anchoring system, a barge, and a turbine on a barge, in other parts of the world they use heavy lift cranes and stand up the primary support structure and assemble blades and generators after; The size/scale is anticipated to require each turbine is expected to take a bare minimum of a square mile and that is with a conservative estimation of the anchoring systems because if you’re anchoring something in 5,280 ft of water, that’s a mile, and if you need scope, there’s a possibility each turbine will take 4sq miles because you need scope for the anchors; So it turns out the footprint for a single turbine anchored independently is potentially 4 sq miles just for the anchoring system, and the barge is thought to be a couple of football fields (they need a high level of stability, so more square footage will likely be necessary); What’s proposed off of CA will have the largest wind turbines (15 megawatts) on the planet anchored in depths from 35-6,000ft of water
Ray says he has a friend in the desert who lives near wind turbines and he says there are dead birds on the ground everywhere
Chris ends the meeting at 5:24PM upstairs in the harbor classroom.