New Reef being built off San Clemente

Discussion in 'Fishing Chit Chat' started by rdrrm8e, Feb 7, 2018.

  1. rdrrm8e

    rdrrm8e Fucking Stan

    Location:
    Anaheim
    Name:
    chuck
    Boat:
    No
    • Messages:
      (6,595)
    • Likes Received:
      (1,969)
    I wonder if Edison or the State will decide it will be closed to recreational fishing to expand their fish count?

    e under construction…


    NEWS
    Expanded kelp reef could be under construction in August off San Clemente
    [​IMG]
    This is how it looked in 2008 when Southern California Edison dumped quarry rock from Catalina Island onto the ocean floor and creating a 174-acre kelp forest off San Clemente. (Photo courtesy Southern California Edison)
    By FRED SWEGLES | [email protected] | Orange County Register
    PUBLISHED: February 7, 2018 at 1:24 pm | UPDATED: February 7, 2018 at 1:28 pm
    • [​IMG]
    • [​IMG]
    • [​IMG]
    • [​IMG]

    1 of 4

    A 2010 photo shows a fishing boat working the edge of a kelp reef built in 2008 by Southern California Edison on the ocean floor off San Clemente. Edison is proposing to double the 174-acre reef to meet requirements of the Coastal Commission on Edison’s San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. (File photo by Jebb Harris, Orange County Register/SCNG)

    Barges could appear off San Clemente as early as August to begin dumping 150,000 tons of quarry rock onto the ocean floor.

    Southern California Edison plans to more than double the size of a kelp reef that the utility company built in 2008 off San Clemente.

    That 174-acre artificial reef is a half-mile offshore, extending south from the San Clemente Pier almost to San Mateo Point. The new reef, if approved by the State Lands Commission, would run north from the pier toward San Clemente’s boundary with Dana Point.

    The utility would dump quarry rock expecting kelp to attach to it, grow to the surface and establish a kelp forest to attract fish.

    The goal is to offset a reduction in the fish population off San Onofre said to have been caused in the 1980s by the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station’s saltwater cooling system. A study said that sandy water was expelled onto the ocean floor, degrading San Onofre’s kelp reef.

    The commission subsequently required Edison to build a 150-acre artificial reef a half-mile off San Clemente. Edison ended up building a 174-acre reef.

    While the San Clemente reef produces a healthy volume of kelp, officials said the habitat isn’t creating a big enough fish population to satisfy a Coastal Commission permit. So Edison proposes a bigger reef.

    At a public meeting held Tuesday, Feb. 6, at the Ocean Institute in Dana Point, officials described Edison’s plan as a new 200-acre reef right next to the existing one, in waters 35 to 45 feet deep.

    Edison invested $45 million into decades of studies, design and construction of the original reef. This new reef, modeled after the first one, will cost about $20 million, said Patrick Tennant, Edison’s manager of mitigation and restoration.

    The Coastal Commission permit requires Edison’s reef – whatever the size – to sustain new population of 28 tons of fish.

    The Coastal Commission hires scientists from UC Santa Barbara to monitor the reef, and Edison must demonstrate a sufficient fish population from year to year for 30 years to match the number of years that two nuclear reactors operated. Edison retired the power plant in 2013.

    Since 2008, Edison’ reef has not been credited with a single year of compliance.

    Tennant said Edison hopes the expanded reef can consistently meet the Coastal Commission’s standard and fulfill the permit’s requirement in 30 years. At present, Edison is paying $1.5 million per year to monitor year-to-year failures to reach 28 tons, with no end in sight.

    Edison and co-owners of the San Onofre power plant are responsible for the costs – Edison 78 percent, San Diego Gas & Electric 20 percent and Riverside almost 2 percent, Tennant said.

    At the Feb. 6 meeting, the public was invited to raise questions to be examined in an environmental analysis of Edison’s plan.

    San Clemente boaters Ken Nielsen and Jim Dahl questioned what Edison will do if doubling the reef doesn’t prove enough. They suggested that building a taller reef would attract more fish than just building more of the same low-relief rock to grow kelp, as Edison did earlier.

    “When I want to fish in an area for fish, I don’t go to low-relief,” Nielsen said. “I go to high-relief.”

    Katie Day, representing the Surfrider Foundation, asked the study to consider impacts to the shoreline and surf breaks and to sea life during construction.

    The State Lands Commission, which commissioned the environmental study, will accept public comments until Feb. 20. Write to [email protected]. The next workshop is set for 1:30 p.m. April 9 at the Ocean Institute.

    Tennant said Edison hopes to obtain permits in time to get some of the reef built in August and September. The utility can’t dump rocks beyond September due to lobster season, so work would resume in 2019.

    If the permit process takes too long to get any work done this year, Edison will build the entire reef in 2019, Tennant said.
     
    the SLIDER and GOFAST88 like this.
  2. duckbutter6a

    duckbutter6a Florida man living in SoCal

    Location:
    El Cajon
    Name:
    Hank
    Boat:
    Dusky 17
    • Messages:
      (1,273)
    • Likes Received:
      (1,164)
    Hope it gets approved. Building more reefs will help the fish population big time.
     
  3. yrd

    yrd BS on no pics ..!.,

    Location:
    Flux
    Name:
    Ted
    Boat:
    anything w/ HOOK-UP!!!
    • Messages:
      (385)
    • Likes Received:
      (58)
    The location is not in a current MLPA. Only 10-12 miles south of the Laguna MLPA and about 5 miles from Dana Point harbor, and was not mentioned(that I recall) to be a future site.
     
  4. NoLDR

    NoLDR OG BD member

    Location:
    Sherman Oaks
    Name:
    BRAD
    Boat:
    29 Baha Cruiser NoLDR
    • Messages:
      (1,662)
    • Likes Received:
      (644)
    great news
     
  5. Mtnfshr

    Mtnfshr Well-Known "Member"

    Location:
    Denver
    Name:
    Chuck Mc
    Boat:
    none
    • Messages:
      (823)
    • Likes Received:
      (331)
    Personally, i would rather see it created in a minimum of 60 feet of water. 90 might be better...
     
  6. AndyJ

    AndyJ Well-Known "Member"

    Location:
    Dana Point CA
    Name:
    Andy Jakubas
    Boat:
    18.5 Cobalt
    • Messages:
      (889)
    • Likes Received:
      (441)
    Nice. Right down the street. And I agree about the 60 to 90 feet depth
     
  7. fishkilr

    fishkilr on the water

    Location:
    long beach,ca.u.s.a.
    Name:
    alby
    Boat:
    Indian/Aahi/Inseine
    • Messages:
      (2,482)
    • Likes Received:
      (2,813)
    That shallow I wonder if it will break in a huge swell...
     
  8. yrd

    yrd BS on no pics ..!.,

    Location:
    Flux
    Name:
    Ted
    Boat:
    anything w/ HOOK-UP!!!
    • Messages:
      (385)
    • Likes Received:
      (58)
    At that depth, there will not be breakers. Cortez bank is about 25 feet and it is outside the shadow of Pt. Conception and all the other islands. For waves to break there, you wouldn't be allowed to leave Dana Point harbor and there would be massive warnings...good query though...
    upload_2018-2-7_17-51-26.png
     
  9. the SLIDER

    the SLIDER https://multimediabylj.com

    Location:
    Dana Point
    Name:
    L J
    Boat:
    the SLIDER
    • Messages:
      (1,156)
    • Likes Received:
      (2,040)
    From the area. Local kelp goes out to about 10 F and some small patches are deeper, however they are rare. I do agree about the plant being deeper; 45-55 ft.

    I'm sure there was some diligent research done to make sure the plant is at the right depth to be prosperous. After all, we are in California, a state that approves roads, builds them 10 years later, takes 5 years to do it, then discovers they are outdated for the road demands by the time their completed.

    Site_i.jpg

    They should be busting out some Dolos.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2018
    MikeyLikesIt likes this.
  10. wils

    wils lazy-ass well known "member"

    Location:
    not a spoiled bitch from san diego
    Name:
    bill
    Boat:
    I hate boats
    • Messages:
      (8,628)
    • Likes Received:
      (4,527)
    Its fish habitat. Its free. and some local fishermen are complaining about it.
    Perfect. o_O
     
    Blackfish, kookfarmer and makairaa like this.
  11. MikeyLikesIt

    MikeyLikesIt did you say F I S H I N G ???

    Location:
    East-a-La-Mesa, baby!
    Name:
    starts with an "M".....
    Boat:
    #1 boat scrubber - Team Madrugador
    • Messages:
      (9,865)
    • Likes Received:
      (3,078)

    Yeah, but I'd bet it will be......
     
  12. Blackfish

    Blackfish Fishing, a perpetual series of occasions for hope.

    Location:
    In a Pineapple, under the sea.
    Name:
    Rotus
    Boat:
    50' Hatteras and 24' cuddy
    • Messages:
      (5,570)
    • Likes Received:
      (3,621)
    Reefball.com
    http://fishreef.org/2016/04/fish-reef-project-founder-published-in-the-oc-register/

    [​IMG]

    WAY cheaper, wont require ripping more of the side of CI off....will attract more aquatic life, and will provide area for kelp growth, but Ca. is so caught up in red tape and BS....Proposed back when they decided the first reef was not yielding enough fish...but....

    Chris Goldblatt, founder of the Fish Reef Project, suggested that Edison incorporate concrete reef balls into the reef. They are about three feet tall, he said, and cost about $1,000 apiece to deploy. Because they are hollow and surrounded by holes, he said, they produce a whirring sound, “the same acoustic signature as a 15-foot-tall pile of quarry rock.

    For $1 million, we can deploy 1,000 reef balls and you’ll meet your fish standard within two years,” Goldblatt said.
    The researchers said that would be outside the parameters of the reef Edison’s coastal permit requires, as it must mimic a natural reef."""


    Imagine 20,000 reef balls.
     
    Last edited: Feb 7, 2018
    sush1allday likes this.

Share This Page