Front Page  »  

Offshore wind projects bring gale-force concerns

April 24, 2023

Julie Tacker

OPINION by JULIE TACKER

If you’ve lived on the Central Coast for a length of time, you’ll remember the seismic testing project proposed in 2012 for PG&E’s Diablo Canyon license extension. Just as the project was winding its way through the San Luis Obispo County and California Coastal Commission permitting process, San Luis Bay made worldwide news when five 50 foot long 60,000 pound humpback whales swam into the bay to feast on a swirling “bait ball” of fish that also drew thousands of diving sea birds and a colony of sea lions.

This real-time nature show brought tens of thousands of sea-watching humans to the region to further enjoy the hotels, restaurants, and other amenities our county has to offer.

CalCoastNews, in an April 21 article, referenced the fast-tracked legislation SB 286 (McGuire) and the Central Coast Emerging Industries Waterfront Siting and Infrastructure Study commissioned by the Regional Economic Action Coalition (REACH). The study was funded by the County of San Luis Obispo, the County of Santa Barbara and the City of Morro Bay.

The resulting report paints a rosy picture of industrializing not only Port San Luis Harbor, but also Morro Bay and possibly the scenic shore along the south side of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in SLO County.

The study laughingly references Ellwood Pier near the Baccara hotel, and the tourist-popular Stearns Warf in Santa Barbara County for potential offshore wind support facilities but does not go into the specifics of onshore impacts.  These project impacts are incalculable affecting local businesses and tourism, requiring widening roads and piers, grading hillsides for larger beaches, underwater blasting and beefing-up infrastructure that will likely change the character of our charming coastal communities.

This legislation SB 286, authorizing consolidated Coastal Development Permits for offshore wind projects, strips the communities most affected of the ability to vet the on and offshore components.

If signed into law, the bill would eliminate hearings before the local advisory councils, the Planning Commissions and City Councils or Board of Supervisors who represent the affected communities and their environments.

“Consolidated Permitting” is planning code for expedited “Automatic Approval.” Both local agencies and the Coastal Commission cry “staffing shortages” the projects would likely get short shrift review and “poof,” they’re approved.

Examples include, the $167 million Morro Bay wastewater treatment plant, the $93 million Pismo Beach Central Coast Blue and the Oceano Airport’s $2 million pilot campground projects are just a few consolidated permits that missed, or will miss, out on local input.

By engaging all stakeholders for projects that raise public policy issues – local governments and organizations, businesses, residents, and communities – we deepen democracy and ensure that people have a say over the decisions that impact their everyday lives.  If the people don’t participate, how are the decision makers supposed to know what to approve and what not to approve.

Community engagement is a public process, and it keeps decision-makers accountable. The community deserves to have transparency over the decision-making process and should feel that their input was considered. It also gives individuals in the community the opportunity to understand how a perspective or need which was different from their own had to be acknowledged, giving them a better understanding and acceptance of a final decision or outcome.

The report explains underwater blasting is a serious matter, it is often conducted close to different types of structures such as quay walls (underwater retaining walls for large boats to park along), breakwaters and harbor buildings.

Ground vibration, which is the energy from the blast transmitted through the rock or ground, can occur from the blasting. These vibrations are determined by various factors such as quantity of charges, characteristics of the rock and distance from the blast.

The blasting contractor performs test blasts to determine the quantity of explosives that can be fired to accomplish the breakage and removal of materials without injuries to persons, and aquatic wildlife or other natural resources, or damage to personal or public property.

The proposed blasting of the ocean quashed the Diablo Canyon seismic testing project in 2012, did our leaders forget this in just 10 short years?  We elect leaders to find creative solutions to our energy demands, not turn to industrializing our communities and damaging our ocean for benefits that may, or may not, materialize.

We have a $2 billion dollar visitor-serving economy, and few people are talking about the potential adverse impacts to that industry. Where are our county supervisors, Assemblywoman and state senator?  Likewise, where are the environmental organizations including Surfrider, Sierra Club and the League of Women Voters?

This cannot be a fait accompli.


Loading...
Subjects:     
Related:


24 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

While I admit there will be challenges to successfully launching the offshore wind farms off the coast of California, I submit they are worth the time and money in an effort to move past the burning of fossil fuels or the continued use of nuclear as expeditiously as possible.


I quote from a recent Cal Poly publication by a scientist who is now a member of the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, which is working on these wind farms:


“In total, we evaluated six categories of potential effects [of floating wind turbines], including changes in atmospheric and ocean dynamics due to the removal of wind energy from turbines; effects on marine animals from noise and electromagnetic field emissions; changes to benthic and pelagic communities [pelagic zone refers to the water column where swimming and floating organisms live—benthic refers to bottom dwelling creatures] due to habitat alterations; collision, displacement and entanglement risks; and changes to water quality.


Overall, we found that the potential effects of deepwater floating offshore wind farms on marine species, habitats and ecosystem processes are likely to be minor to moderate, though monitoring and research is needed to validate our results as more projects are deployed. The findings also suggest that offshore wind developers can further reduce the potential effects of deepwater floating wind farms by carefully siting them outside of important habitats, such as key migratory pathways, and using existing best management practices and effective mitigation strategies.”


In other words, I believe the DOE is doing their best to make sure these wind farms are mostly harmless and sustainable. I’m virtually positive the studies the government is doing know are far beyond the studies done by Union Oil before they punched holes in the Pacific Ocean for offshore oil platforms off the coast of Santa Barbara in the 1960’s. Though I realize this is an extremely low bar.


-24

Those couple dozen “holes punched in the Pacific Ocean…off Santa Barbara”, replaced the hundreds of holes punched along the bluffs from Goleta to Gaviota, that leaked and spewed crude oil onto the many hundreds of acres of land, and leaked streams of oil into the ocean and beaches. Many times more barrels of oil leaked, than the offshore rigs ever have.


I suppose I shall not mention, the 5 million+ gallons of oil that naturally leaks from the Channel every year, according to NOAA…


0

I suppose I shall mention “the 5 million+ gallons of oil that naturally leaks from the Channel every year” is not true.


“on average, approximately 160,000 tonnes of petroleum (5 million+ gallons) enter North American waters through natural seeps each year”


All North American seeps, not just the channel.


3

Ohhh! That’s certainly different! Silly me, I was only using NOAA’s own report that says:


“Natural seeps in Southern California contribute about 5 million gallons of oil to the ocean annually, with wide year to year variation (NAS 2003). However, in the Coal Oil Point area alone, seep estimates range from 4,200 to 25,000 gallons of oil per day, or 1.5 to 9 million gallons annually” (Leifer et al. 2005), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | National Ocean Service


Coal Oil Point, is the Gaviota field.


4

SB236 – State Senate Majority leader and democrat Mike McGuire (‘the man who hates whales’), a former military defense contractor with general dynamics, just passed a bill through the Natural Resource Committee that would allow undersea seismic explosions without any environmental review! This will kill many whales.


12

This is hogwash. McGuire’s bill seeks to “expedite” the construction of wind farms. This is a preliminary step and will not “kill many whales” According to SB236:


“SB 286 requires the Coastal Commission to bring the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the State Lands Commission, the Ocean Protection Council, representatives from the commercial fishing industry, representatives from the offshore wind industry, federal agencies, labor, Native American tribes and other stakeholders together over the next two years. This stakeholder group will create a statewide standard to ensure offshore wind development is expedited and will develop data-driven strategies to avoid and minimize impacts to ocean fisheries and to the maximum extent possible, mitigate for unavoidable impacts.”


The bill recently passed the Senate Energy Committee with a 9-0 vote, meaning it has bipartisan support.


-12

By the way, spiritpen has the number wrong as do I in my first paragraph. It is SB286 that deals with offshore wind farms and not 236. In addition, contrary to the statement that McGuire “hates whales,” he is the state senator who authored a bill which would protect whales from crab fishing gear. I suppose maybe spiritpen is a disgruntled dungeness crab fisherman who is out of business. Thousands are, not really because of legislation, but because of climate change.


-9

Seismic testing in and of itself is quite deadly to whales. It causes deafness, which condemns them to a slow and painful death by starvation. Perhaps when these agencies mentioned get together, that aspect will be discussed. To state that someone else is posting “hogwash” when they state that whales will be killed by an obviously deadly sonic blast is disingenuous in the extreme. It should be completely obvious just how deadly sonic blasts are to all forms of life, not just whales.


When the sonic tests were being proposed for Diablo, I spoke directly to a local government representative who called the tests “Holding PG& E’s feet to the fire” on safety. His background should have made him entirely aware of what would happen to the wildlife and so should the EIR. Obviously, if there is money to be made, these nearly omnipotent “representatives” from various agencies are entirely capable of completely ignoring all else, right along with the corporate donors who put them in office. I would become suspect at the first whiff of a lack of public input to any project.


5

All I can tell you is that I will trust the scientists on this. I’m funny that way—too many years of dealing with soils and groundwater tables I guess.


I have not read any study about these wind farms that indicate the blasting needed will kill whales. Maybe you can point me in the right direction, and I don’t mean studies about what Diablo was going to do. In 40 something years PGE has rarely told us the truth about that plant.


-5

I am greatly heartened to see so many in opposition to seismic testing and development off our coast. I say this because I studied this issue in depth back in 2012 and was shocked and horrified at the level of damage that such a project would do to our environment. For instance, I read the Environmental Impact Report from beginning to end.


According to the EIR, our ocean would be sterilized down to the microbial level at the areas included in the sonic blasting process. I went further than the material given to us and investigated other places where similar work had been done, such as a strip of coast in Norway. They had allowed the same process to take place and three years later, there were still no signs of life. No fish, ergo no birds, etc. Nothing. Sterilized. Whales, who’s hearing often extends across the ocean, would be deafened for a huge radius and die.


Just how many tourist dollars would we acquire from that? Our tourists do not come here to view “development”. How would that affect our fishing industry? Whale watching? Our own quality of life, to have a complete dead zone off our coast for miles and miles? How could we live with ourselves knowing we had allowed the destruction of our incredible natural paradise for a few dollars or power that could be generated in far less destructive ways?


There are successful alternatives. For instance, the solar project at Carrissa Plains is a resounding environmental success. According to all feedback from scientists and wildlife experts, the natural world is thriving in the presence of the panels.


Please resist those who would attempt to influence you against your better judgement by insisting that resistance is some sort of “liberal plot” or suggesting that you turn a blind eye to things you “don’t understand” for the massive financial gain of a few who stand to profit at the expense of our very environmental sustainability and future.


20

I do presume they will use all electric equipment to build these windmills and infastructure to support them as that’s the basis of the millions spent on these climate change projects !!RIGHT !!


18

If ANYTHING adds to the traffic at PSL/Avila, it will become a massive parking lot from 101 to Harford Pier. MASSIVE!


45

The problem is that public comment is a tool for a vocal minority to veto all development. The people who show up to community input sessions are disproportionately wealth “I-got-mine” types who don’t don’t speak for the community, but are just the people with time to attend meetings. It’s not about understanding or perspective, it’s about stopping change. Be honest, the NIMBYs who attend have their minds made up, it doesn’t matter what benefits or mitigations are attached.


-53

Just like the “Oppose Walmart” group years ago in Atascadero. Union elitist


8

I’m no syndicalist. NIMBYs and unions sometimes join forces at local meetings – either speak for the community. Like the way they push for local worker requirements for construction; union gets special accomodations and the NIMBYs get a cap on development speed and can force higher prices and less accessibility.


-10

At some point we have got to stop justifying projects just because of money. Enviro, politico or even a personal need should not be an excuse to disfigure certain views.


44

OMG, not “change”!!


-54

you mean from a living sea to a dead one?


10

Not certain how I feel about all of this. Most of the public is ill prepared to debate the matter and that is why we elect public officials. Permitting in California is a nightmare for most everything. We need sources of power but seem bent on closing Diablo Canyon, outlawing coal fired plants and preventing drilling or fracking. Julie’s post seems to make sense about all of the impacts, but, I’m not sure that she or I are educated enough to know what the issues or solutions really are.


-25

LOL Wow you said a lot of nothing. Julie Tacker is brilliant. Who do you work for anyway?


-1
1 2