Remote Access or In-Person

The California Energy Commission (CEC) will agendize a Resolution to adopt/approve the Final Offshore Wind Strategic Plan as mandated by AB525.

The resolution was on the June CEC meeting but was moved to this meeting due to the lack of time given for review of the final Strategic Plan as it was available and posted to the CEC website less than 24 hours prior to the meeting.

CALL TO ACTION: Public comment will be taken at the time the item is heard. The resolution is Item #4 on the agenda. Here is a link to for agendas, presentations, meeting materials, and transcripts. 

https://efiling.energy.ca.gov/Lists/DocketLog.aspx?docketnumber=24-BUSMTG-01

Ideas for public comment will be posted in the near future - Stay Tuned!

 www.coastal.ca.gov

CALL TO ACTION:

1. Friday, July 5th at 5:00 p.m is the last day to submit wirren comments on the Coastal Development Permit for Atlas wind.

   Please consider submitting written comments as well as signing up for verbal comments.

   You are encouraged to register to speak at the meeting on Friday, July 12th but also strongly encouraged to submit written comments on this item by the end of day - July 5th.

   Submit written comments by going to www.coastal.ca.gov

   Click on Monthly Meeting Agenda, go to Friday July 12, 2024 and scroll down to Item 9a - Application No. 9-24-0411 (Atlas Wind US LLC, San Luis Obispo Co.) and hit the “Submit Comment” button. Provide your input on the overall issue of site surveys and/or the concerns with this being a de minimis waiver. Written comments need to be submitted by 5p on Friday July 5th.

2. Here is a draft letter to help you in writing your comments.

   Dear California Coastal Commissioners and Staff, 

   I am writing to voice my deep concern about the staff report advocating for approval of a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for Equinor/Atlas Wind to conduct HRG surveying in state and nearshore waters off the Central Coast. 

    

   In general, the report was short, superficial, and wholly inadequate for approval of a project of this magnitude, importance and level of potential impacts, only 32 pages.  In contrast, the 2012 Staff report for PG&E seismic surveys was 406 pages and included extensive research on local biology and cultural resources, geology, soils, public safety, land use and recreation impacts, traffic and transportation issues, and commercial fishing. Information about socioeconomic effects, and a mitigation and monitoring program included in the 2012 report are similarly absent in the current document. Also missing are underwater noise assessment reports, a larval mortality modeling report, and a proposed long-term fish monitoring program and acoustic surveys with nearshore geophones. The current Atlas Wind CDP report excludes most of those topics and, when mentioned, few details are provided. Incredibly, the report does not even provide a list of threatened or endangered species in the area.

    

   Furthermore, the report indicates that there is no requirement for a new CEQA review and that use of an outdated 2014 CEQA document is sufficient. Meanwhile, there is growing public concern about the rush to permit offshore wind energy development, and cutting corners like this will further erode public trust in the process, and in the regulatory bodies themselves.

    

   The Staff report cherry picks newspaper articles, research data, and personal conversations to make biased conclusions in favor of Atlas Wind. For example, while the report cites Dr. Arthur Popper as an expert who backs up their claims that HRG surveying is safe, it fails to include the fact that Dr. Popper also points to many information gaps, including the reality that impacts of HRG surveys on fish in the Pacific Ocean have never been studied, and so he cannot state conclusively that there will be no impacts. Most importantly, Dr. Popper reveals that loud sounds (powerful vibrations) outside the hearing range of animals, can cause tissue damage, even when inaudible to the animal. Vulnerable life forms include zooplankton, krill and larva which form the base of the food chain and upon which all other marine life depends. Even small impacts to this system can have wide reaching detrimental consequences on whole ecosystems, including those affecting endangered whales and sea turtles. It is imperative that the potential for such impacts be studied prior to the commencement of surveys, and not be ignored in favor of expediting the process. In fact, why are you permitting surveying at all prior to the adoption of “best practices” for this activity as  previously required by the CCC? 

    

   Biological monitoring studies should be established before any further survey work is done. Independent acoustic monitoring must be required to keep to wind energy companies honest and to ensure compliance with all limits and regulations designed to protect marine mammals.

    

   We were disappointed that the Staff report does not take into consideration the mass mortality events of hundreds of whales and thousands of other cetaceans on the East Coast that coincide with location and time of HRG surveys. Sadly, it seems negative data from offshore wind development is restricted from public review and legitimate analysis. 

    

   While I have serious concerns about the staff report as described above, I am grateful that site assessment activities will be prohibited around Diablo Canyon/Point Buchon MPA as well as near the mouth of the Morro Bay Estuary. However, the cable landing site now being promoted is in a very popular destination area between Morro Bay and Cayucos known as “Dog Beach”. Hundreds of people visit this location daily as one place where they can let their dogs off leash to play, swim and walk on the beach. It is also very close to residences in Cayucos and the Morro Bay. High decibel sound is dangerous. High Voltage DC cables are dangerous. Jet plowing that will be needed to bury the high voltage cables is dangerous as it resuspends toxic metals contaminating the water.  Why is there is no mention of public safety in the report?  Do you intend to cut this beach off from public access temporarily during construction, or even permanently? 

    

   I urge you to recommend that this action be denied, due to the high level of potential harms, or at least deferred, until a more thorough analysis is conducted on the potential impacts.  If this CPD is approved, it will appear that the CCC is rushing the permit to appease wind developers to the detriment of the people, animals, and environment that the Commission is entrusted to protect. 

    

   Thank you for your time and attention.

   Sincerely

Public comment can be make in writing or during the meeting. https://www.slc.ca.gov/meetings/

Sorry for the late notice but we just found out that the CCC executive staff will be doing a report Wednesday June 12 under item 6a on the Morro Bay Wind and Fisheries working group progress.  This is BOEM’s Morro Bay wind energy lease area Condition 7 Working Group that the CCC required in their Consistency Determination to permit wind developers to do offshore wind development.  The working group is made up of fishermen, seafood processors, fishermen organization representatives, state agencies (SLC, CCC, DFW, others), and wind developers with CA leases.   The working group's charter is to develop a statewide template for mitigation of offshore wind development.  This includes “Best Practices for site surveys”.  

We need to write letters of concern that the “best practices for site surveys” have not been developed by the working group before site surveys have been allowed to proceed.  As a result, Equinor has begun doing surveys with no independent acoustic monitoring, no before/during/after impact control studies of marine life, no clear communication plan for the fishermen,  and no mitigation plan for impacts to wildlife and to stakeholders in place.  There is no enforcement of the sound perimeters,  there is no scout boat, they are using a foreign vessel with questionable violations to the Jones Act, they are working at night and in low visibility using some type of “alternative method” of seeing but no one will confirm exactly how and what that method is.  

The CCC is relying on BOEM’s incomplete, inaccurate Environmental Assessment (EA) that states there will be no impacts from site surveys on marine wildlife and no impacts to fishermen.   This conclusion is based on irrelevant old studies and assumptions - there has NEVER been a study of impacts from High Resolution Geographic mapping ever done in the Pacific Ocean.  Already, black cod fishermen have documented a 67% decline in their catches. 

The decibels (228dB) they will be allowed to use do have impacts to mammals, fish, invertebrates, larvae, zooplankton, and krill. 

 CALL TO ACTION: Please send in a letter to ExecutiveStaff@coastal.ca.gov before 5 pm on Friday, June 7th, in order for the Coastal Commissioners to be able to read it prior to the meeting.  

Here is a direct link to provide these written comments. https://www.coastal.ca.gov/meetings/agenda/#/2024/6. Scroll down to item 6a and click on submit comments.

Hybrid format 

Sovereign Nation of the Elk Valley Rancheria

2332 Howland Hill Road, Crescent City, CA 95531
 www.coastal.ca.gov

CALL TO ACTION:

1. Register to speak on Friday, May 10th, Item 7. Energy, Ocean Resources & Federal Consistency. Rather than having a full-fledged hearing on this Coastal Development Permit, the Executive Director is allowing the item to be a Coastal Development Permit de minimis waiver. Which means the Executive Director has made a determination that the permit No. 9-23-0874-W, for Equinor Wind US LLC to conduct their site surveys will have no adverse effect on coastal resources. See this reference from the Coastal Act - Coastal Act section 30624.7 “A proposed development is de minimis if the executive director determines that it involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources….”

2. Submit written comments in Item 7 by going to the www.coastal.ca.gov

   Click on Monthly Meeting Agenda, go to Friday May 10, 2024 and scroll down to Item 7 - Energy, Ocean Resources & Federal Consistency and hit the “Submit Comment” button. Provide your input on the overall issue of site surveys and/or the concerns with this being a de minimis waiver. Written comments need to be submitted by 5p on Friday May 3rd!

3. If you are not available to speak on Friday, please speak during general public comment about your general concerns with the upcoming offshore wind projects. NOTE: You won’t be allowed to address the specific permit for Equinor on Wednesday or Thursday as it is an agendized item on Friday.

 www.coastal.ca.gov

CALL TO ACTION:

1. Rather than having a full-fledged hearing on Permit No. 9-23-0874-W, for Equinor Wind US LLC to conduct their site surveys in nearshore waters, the Executive Director is allowing the item to be a Coastal Development Permit de minimis waiver. Which means the Executive Director has made a determination that permit No. 9-23-0874-W, for Equinor Wind US LLC to conduct their site surveys will have no adverse effect on coastal resources. See this reference from the Coastal Act - Coastal Act section 30624.7 “A proposed development is de minimis if the executive director determines that it involves no potential for any adverse effect, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources….”

   You are encouraged to register to speak at the meeting on Friday, but also strongly encouraged to submit written comments on this item.

   Submit written comments by going to www.coastal.ca.gov

   Click on Monthly Meeting Agenda, go to Friday May 10, 2024 and scroll down to Item 7 - Energy, Ocean Resources & Federal Consistency and hit the “Submit Comment” button. Provide your input on the overall issue of site surveys and/or the concerns with this being a de minimis waiver. Written comments need to be submitted by 5p on Friday May 3rd!

2. Here is a draft letter for an idea on what to submit:

   Dear Commissioners:

   The California Coastal Commission is responsible for protecting California resources. Fish and Fishing rights are highly protected in California. Fish habitat is highly protected in California waters. 

   Equinor seeks a de minimis waiver for high resolution geographic (HRG) site survey work through critical habitat that affects fish, fishing rights, and habitat. How can Equinor qualify for a de minimis waiver?

   SB 286 legislation and the California Coastal Commission’s 7th Condition of its Consistency Determination requires a working group made up of fishermen, wind developers, and State agency representatives to develop a Statewide template for “best practices for site surveys.”  No surveys should be allowed until the 7c working group is finished and until comprehensive biological and independent acoustic monitoring, and comprehensive mitigation for impacted fishermen are established. 

   Equinor must know all of this and appears to be going around CA law. Do not cooperate with them. Vote no at this time to support our marine resources.

   Sincerely,