Support California Fishermen: Submit Your Public Comment by 5:00 p.m. on Monday, February 23, 2026.
The California Coastal Commission has released their report on the Statewide Strategy for the Coexistence of California Fishing Communities and Offshore Wind Energy .
This report “fulfills the Commission’s duty to…convene a working group and develop a Statewide Strategy for ensuring that offshore wind energy projects avoid and minimize impacts to ocean fisheries to the maximum extent possible…” Local fishermen groups spent hundreds of hours meeting with various stakeholders in order to inform the report. Unfortunately, the guidelines created fall far short of their hopes of a positive outcome for the fishing industry.
Use the TALKING POINTS below to craft your own comment
and email to
FEBRUARY 23, 2026 at 5:00 p.m..
____________________________________________
Consider a paragraph at the top of your public comment summarizing your perspective. Below is an example of such a paragraph - but please do not just cut and paste - edit to make it your own.
Thank you for your efforts in creating this report. I want to acknowledge the fishing stakeholders for spending hundreds of hours reading and attending meetings in hopes of forging a fair and positive outcome for the fishing industry as it navigates the possibility of industrialization of the ocean to serve offshore wind energy interests. Unfortunately, the report has fallen short of that aim and I hope you can address the following concerns as soon as possible in an amended report.
1. PRIORITIZING CLIMATE GOALS OVER FISHING: The report starts off stating California’s Floating Offshore Wind energy will help meet the State’s “climate goals”, yet the stated purpose of the report is to provide a coexistence strategy between wind energy developers and local fishermen. Recognizing and protecting California’s fishing communities seems to be a secondary priority. Net zero goals are distinct from goals to protect fisheries, fishing resources and interests. Furthermore, in previous documents, even BOEM agreed that OSW will have a minimal impact on climate change.
2. NO ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM: The document only proposes “guidelines” and does not include enforceable guardrails. Without a binding enforcement mechanism for non-compliance, such as lease cancellation or hefty fines, there is nothing to force offshore wind corporations to comply. The lack of enforcement options leaves the fishermen in a very vulnerable position of relying on the good conscience of wind developers to follow through with promises made. In light of the fact that these developers are actually multinational for-profit corporations, such voluntary policing seems highly irresponsible. Keep in mind that fishermen themselves are under very strict regulatory guidelines that ARE enforceable.
3. INCOMPLETE INFORMATION ON HRG SURVEYS: The report reveals a lack of accountability for potential impacts to biological resources from HRG site surveys. Impacts on biological resources are impacts to fishing and protection to fishing is required by the California Coastal Act. Large gaps exist in the science used by the CCC to determine that HRG surveys using AUVs and UTPs have minimal impacts to marine life. It is irresponsible for California government agencies to rely on their 2014 site survey permit structure that were designed for permits to dredge harbors and inspect sewage lines and cables. Those permits and technology are irrelevant to what is being proposed for floating offshore wind energy development.
4. NO BASELINE STUDIES: There is no requirement for baseline studies prior to commencing site surveys. How can potential harms to fish and other marine life populations be accurately studied or understood without first establishing a true baseline? We urge you include a requirement for BACI (before-after-control impact) studies for site surveys.