Final Technical Report of the Marine Review Committee to the

l-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
t
t
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
'".015
sq
u&c)0c
TECHNICAL REPORT
TO TIIE
CALIFOR}.IIA COASTALCOMMIS SION
H. Mitigation
N4ARINEREVIEW COMMITTEE, INC.
William W. Murdoch, Chairman
UniversitYof California
Bwon J. Mechalas
SouthernCLtifornia Edison Computy
Rinmon C. FaY
Pacific Bio-Marine Labs,Inc'
PreParedblt
Richaril F. Ambrose
Proi- ea PrinciPalInvestigator:
RichardF. Ambrose
Contributing Staff:
Todd W. Anderson
BobetteNelson
Roben Stoughton
SusanL Swarbrick
BonnieM. Williamson
FebruarY1990
"t
I
I
tI
ll
ll'
ll
l:
I
l,
I
l,
I
I
l.
l'
I
I
'l
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
TABLE OF CONIENTS
REPORT SUMI\{ARY......-....-.---
-----..--..-""'
1
Chapter 1: Introduction-....-.1.1 Overrriewof mitigation.---...--.-.-..:
12 Monitoring........
13 Summaryof resourcelosses....-.
1,.4Literature Cited.......
xru
"""""""""o"""""""
o'ooo""o""""'o""""'
3
5
8
11
sEcTIoNI.I.oSSREDUCTIoNTECHNIQI]ES
15
Chapter2: Intnoductionto lossreductiontechniques
t9
2.1 Summaryof SONGSOPerations
)\
Chapter3: Intake sYstem
3.1 l-ossreductiontechniquesDo\ilin use"""'
32 Structruulsfoanges
Travsling screenmo$iEcquons....."""
32.1
--jz.t.tPotjntialreductionsinIosses".........-.........................
""""""""'
32.L2 Technicalfeasibility
32.13 Costs....-..
322
323
Infiltration beds-..o.-'..oo.."'o"-"e'-""
'o"F """"'o
Porous dikes.----..
32.4 Barriers)Etems
325
Movin ihtakes.'
325 Movine
o"""""""'o'
33 Behavioral
333 Ugbt
333.1 I
3332 Strobe
sYstem"'Chapter4: Discharge
nowib use"'-"
4.1 Lossreducdontecbniques
i.i ttaooifvbottomtoPograPhY
4-3ModifydiffuserPorts'::::'--"""'
q7 Plaeeltructures-overdiffirserports"""""4.4.1Rocks
25
30
30
34
36
36
37
38
40
41
46
46
50
52
53
54
54
54
57
59
60
61
61
62
&
67
68
-
TABIJ OF CONIENTS (continued)
4.42 Stnrcnrd units--..---..
:'--'::'-':-'
or triple-pointdischarge--'--'
45 Changeto single-point
.--.-.--.-.....
4.6Relocatedischarge
..-.-........"""-""""""'
4.6.1Moveinshore
4.62 Moveupcoastor dorpncotlst....""""
-..-..-...-..-.'
4.63 Moveobhore
81
of existingcoolingsystem
Chapter5: Replacement
81
85
87
102
103
104
5.1 Cootinsto\rters
reductionsin losses"
5.1.1Po-tential
impacts
S.l2 Associate6
5"13 Feasibility
5.1.4Costs..............
52 Coolingpondsandcanals
Chapter6: Modifrcationof operations"""""'
operatiolsto avoidcriticalperiods""
6.1 Scheduling
in losses
reductions
6.1.1Poten:'tial
"
6.12 TechnicalfeasibilitY
6.13
"""""""'t'
Costs........--.-..-oo----o-ooo---.i
62
-- Reducingflow
62.J Potintial reductionsin losses
622 Tecbnicalfeasibility
623 Coss
70
11
74
75
76
78
-"""""""'
".--""'-"'
""""'-':"" ow""""'
63Combi".i":p:iiJiJ[i--ilii["o"ti"erngreducinsfl
6.4 Modification bf heat treatment Proceoures"'-'-'-"""o"""""""
""'E 'x"""
Section I Literature Cited.-........""o""""'
t07
107
108
115
124
L26
t28
133
L36
r38
141
L43
sEcTIoNILREPI.ACEMENTIECHMQIIES
161
CtapterT:Introductiontoreplacementtechniques......o-o..o.
Chapter t: Artificial reefs""".-"-"""""":'-"""o{"'.-@c".."'od..$.!$imilgilyofartifrcialandnanrralreefcommrrniti€S.'-.*-...
-'-g.Ll
q,oontnity
stnrcture'
s.ii Fitu densitY.-..-
""o'{"..x""'oo"€""!o"""o"""""""'
S.13 pisc,rssioll--....o.-'-""-..-"""o"'o"'--.-'
onoteKeIp
5r v
oI usu 'litrsull,re6vr
l)mDansou
c#il;6fiin'[.$ffi$&'i;i-san
-anA
8.13.1
"11 .
?enOeton Anificial Reef""-"o'.*"-"..-x'-..
82 Fish
82.1
822
..aaaaaaaa.aa.a"
165
169
169
t74
L79
181
186
187
194
I
I
1
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
l
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
'l
i
I
'l
I
l
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
il
il
I
il
it
I
I
I
T
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
822 Grourtb
823 NaturalmortalitY82.4 Fishingmortaliry825 Dissussion...--'..-.
83 Desiepandlocation...-..-.-.-....-----..."o"
o-..------6.--.
83.1 Desiep----...
832 l-ocation............
833 Size
83.4 Costs'.............
8.4 Impactsto soft-bottomcom-Gltiei
8.+.i tntaunatandepifaunalorganisms
8.4.2FishpoPulatiohs
8.5 Overallevaiuation
of riiiiiiourcles""""""
8.5.1In-kindreplacement
ol resources
substinrtion
"""""'
Out'of-kiid
8.5.2
t94
195
196
198
200
200
2U
207
zLO
"
Chapter9: KeIpbedcreation..-.-.--....
9.1
- "9.History.......---.
fi N'il;;i;;.ntitment to artificial reeB""""'
-.-...-9.1.2TransPlants
""""o""""'
Technicalconsiderations-.92
'"g27TeiiisiJ*.
andstabilitvof kelpbeds"""""
---9.2.2Techniques
923 Costs........--.-.93 SumnarY
of coastalwetlands""""o-"'{""""""""""
Chapter10: Restoration
in southerncalifornia
10.1value anduseof coastal_wetlands
io5
- - potJ"tial applicationat SONGS"'
:t02.t In-kindieplacementof resor[ces"'-"""''oo.-'"-'lOzi Outof'riria substinrtionof resources
[email protected],.-.
coastalwetlandrestoration
ro-g'SuccJsiiul
'"
JoSli-p.iigoiog wetland1estorati9.1
!lol:,9:'o"''o"'r""
1032 MonitoringwetlandrestoranonPro!:f:*"""""""'Project""'
1033 Oete"riiilijiU. to.ilii of a reitorLtion
-:--::'-'
wetlandl
restored
im7 Ma6tena"& of
California
10.4
The potentialforwetlandtiitiotioo in Southern
- --103.i
hvailabilityof wetlands
"""'-""
1oiqzcosts...-.-.
"""'o""""""o""
ro.5- -'i Discussion-..--.-os I out-o-i-Fod/off-sit9mitigation
ioS.z Valueof a restoredwetland"""""""'
ur
Zl3
214
215
217
ZZ0
zz3
224
226
?28
?29
?33
235
?36
239
240
246
246
249
a7
251
E4
255
E7
251
258
267
267
268
769
q
TABLE OF CONIENTS (continued)
Chapter 11: Fish hatcheries....-.-.--......
11.1 Introduction-.........-."'d"
112 Hatc"herycasestudies
.....'o"""""
lL2.L Salmon
tl22 Marine fish species.--..-.--........"""""'-"
'-"""'-"-'
113 Discussion..........
Chapter 12: Other mitigation techniques"""""""'
12.1 Coastalpresewation.-....-.....
122 Research.........
123 Water quality improvement...."""""
280
28t
281
282
284
287
SectionII Uterature Cited
SECIIONIII"
n5
n5
n6
n5
n8
RECOMMENDATIONS
313
Chapter 13: Recommendations
313
315
319
327
324
pischgBo
""'-""""""'-""""""-"""""""""
fut obtioqlb: Moving
$e
325
rg.4 ODtioriZ: Preventionandmitigation
325
""""""'-" flow.-...................-.-.
13.4.1Fishlosses-..---..-....326
13.4.L1:i{;;[JdutJ opirationsandreduce
331
"";"""'-"
n'.q-12 ttigb'retiet adfrdal reef"'-'--@do'''o
332
13.4.13Restorewetland.-...-o.*[email protected].......
334
t3.4.LA'CiilrriorO;ppidchtomitigatingfishlosses....do.-.--... 336
ig.a.is nlauce fishimpingsmentlosses"--""o"""o"'do"o"'-"'-""""
338
ty impacls
L3.42 Kelp forestcommuni338
artificia riet witu kelp"'-"'-"""""'-.-'
B.4zfrl;;:;li;f
341
'oo'--""o"""""'-""
13.1 APProach..---.igi Surnnarvof potential nitigatign techniques""""""'
133 Option i: gftangesto the coollngs]Etem-"'
B3:1 Option t3; eeering towers.....
135 Summary
APPENDICES
at SONGS
Appendix.4. Descriptionof coolingsystem
A-1
B-1
lanrae"""
fisb
of
losses
Entrainment
B.
Appendix
of anificialandnanrral'reeB' c-1
Appendixc. Methodsusedin Fall 1986survey
D-1
AppendixD.calgulatingthesizeofanificialreeftomitigateforfishlosses-.
lv
I
I
I
t
I
l-
I
I
l'
l'
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
'l
r
LIST OF TABLES
I
i
I
Table 1-1
,l
Table 1-2
I
I
,1
I
Table 3-2
I
I
I
,l
I
T
t
I
I
I
l
Table 3-1
Table 3-3
Table 5-1
Table 5-2
Table 5-3
Table 6-1
Table 6-2
Table 6-3
Table 6.4
Table 65
Table G6
Table 8-1
Table 8-2
Table 8-3
Examplesof west coastmarine mitigation projects"'
6
---"'
Summaryof soNGS effectson tbe marine environment
'M"impingementsunrivalfor six speciesof larvae'
9
of deepwater intakesfor entrainment
Consequences
of fish larrrae......
of deepwater intakesfor entrapmentof
Consequences
midwaierfish...........
of closed-cycle
Summaryof advantagesand disadvantages
coolingoptions..."
ToxiciW and concentrationfactors of elementsused
i,"ffiiililil!i':;iifi;.:.:-:.:.].:---.-.
33
43
45
88
ChemicalcompositionofwaterdischargedfromsoNcs........96
Possiblereduetionin entrainnento!,$h larvaefrom
-"ffii"-"titg
110
now duringcertainnonths
116
Operatinghistoryof SONGSUnits2 2nd3"""""""'
t?2
at SONGSUnits2 and3"""""""'
of outages
Summary
L27
at soNGS
Normalwinterandsummeroperatingparaneters
at SONGS t29
Potentialsavingsof fisb larvaefrom reducingflow
enuainmentunder
Reductionin ichthyoplankton
no* r.f,"tiIiiloJno* r"auction"'-""""""
different
140
Speciesrichnessand densityof fish on artifrcial
o"""""-'.aira naturA reefs----.---occurreneofspeciesoffishonartificialandnanrralreeB-...t1L
and
Densities of fish at PeadletonArtifrcial Reef
183
the SanOnofre KelP Forest
Table 8-4
Peldleton
Densities of fish over microlabigs at
Table 8-5
Young.of.yearfisbatPendletonArtificialReef....l90
ArtincialReer;iL;d;6;df;tP-ff;t':
v
183
List of Tables(continued)
Table 8-6
Soeciesrichnessand densityof young'of'year
oh artinciat and nanral reefs...-.--.
Table 8-7
Comparisonof concreteandrockpilereefs
Table 8{
Estimated standingstock of benthic fuh on
artifrcial asd natural reets......-.-
209
Table 1G1
The occtrrence of fisb speciesin coastalwetlands
in SoutheruCalifornia.-..--..-...-.
24
Table 1S2
arm
Abundanceof benthic invertebratesin the eastem
of Mugu Lagoon...
245
Table 1G3
AbundanceofmostcolnmonbenthicinvertebratesatMugu
Lagoonand Tijuana EsuarY...
246
Table 1G4
List of speciesof fish that qre -qtrist at SONGS
wetlands
248
coastd
il.ilit"fiJiii il S"rthfi Cagfornia
Table 13-1
Comparisonof annualfish productionfor marineand
esnrdrinehabitas
for mitigatingthe effects
Ust of potentialtechniques
Table 13-2
losses
Summaryof potential mitigation techniquesand
Table 1S5
Table 13-3
Table 13'4
of soNGs.........-.....-......-.-.-'-
;i"t .*fd Lirlauced or c6mpensated""
SONGS320
Options for reducingor mitigating the impactsof
different
Reduction in ichthyoplanktonentrainmentunder
"'-""""""
flon, schedules..---.-*--...o.."""'
191
202
n3
316
617
328
Table 13-5
Conbining mitigation techniques' ExampleS"""-"""'
335
Table B.1
Common and scientific nalnesof fish Species"'Monthly densitiesof fish larrraenear SONGS""""""
B-21
Table B2
Table B-3
. Temporal patterns of ichthyoplanktonabundance
ngar'SONGS
Table B-4
Table B-5
---*o€.-.-"""o"'.-oo"oo""'"'-""
entrainmentat SONGS
Anticipatedichthyoplankton
from
Possiblereductionin entrainmentof Eshlarvae
rescheduling-------.
B-22
B-23
B-24
B.E
I
I
I
T
I
i
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
List of Tables(ConL)
TableC-1
TableD-l
TableD-2
TableD€
of reefssurveyedin Fall 1986"""""""'
Phpical characteristics
of
Sizeof artificial reefneededfor in-kindreplacement
kelpforestfuh losses-..--'.
calculationof artificialreef areaneededfor out-of-kind
mitigatioo
Estimatesof biomasslost--.--...
c-3
D-11
D-L2
D-13
This pageintentionally left blanls
I
I
I
T
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
'lI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
:l
I
I
I
t
LTSTOF FIGURES
Figure3-1
Coastalregionnear SanOnofre Nuclear Generatiqg
Station....
Cbangein intake flowpatternwith avelocity cap'
Figrre 3-2
Intake screenwellarea-.....-.--......""x""
Figrue3-3
Travelingscree!.€[email protected]...'....-.......il..
FigrueG1
SeasonalPattemoftanralfishabrrndancesDearsoNcsl09
patternof entrapmentof jwenile andadult
Seasonal
113
fishat SONGS:Numbers.
Figrre 2-1
Figrue6-2
Figrue6-3
Figure6-4
Figrue8-1
adult
Seasonalpattern of entrapmentof juvenile and
frsb at SONGS: Biomass-.
Savinssthat could be achievedwith different numbers
oi-oTG operatedat two-thirds flow""and
Cluster anatysisof fish assenblageson artificial
-.o.-...."""
naftral reefs.
26
28
tl4
131
t72
Figure1S1
and
Location of SouthernC.aliforniacoastalwetlands
major rivers
Figure1G2
Huntingrcn BeachWetland""""""""'o@
Figrue1G3
:,1il:"'1f;*,,T*
lf,ffiffS"""1ttf
Bf$lt.'fi
26t
Figrre 10'4
Huntinglon BeachWetland (photograph)'-'--"'
at SONGS""'
Schematicof offshorecooling systemstrudures
A:7
Figrre A-1
Figrre A-2
FigureA'3
Figrre ,4'4
Figrre A-5
FigureA-6
FigureB-1
242
260
263
A-8
offshoreintakestnrdureforSoNGSUnis2and3...........".."..
A-9
3"""""""'
Screenwellstnrctureat SONGSUnits 2 and
at SONGS
Diaeram of vertical traveling screenused
A-10
Units 2 and 3 .-.*.--*""".-'o"""".-"-.*.-'
Units 2 and 3""' A-11
Scbematicof salt water flow througb SONGS
for SONGS
Elevationsof offshoreistake and screenwell
A-tz
Unia 2 and3.-.-....-.-...'
abundances'
Seasonalpattern of total icbthyoplankton
8'-26
att yeatsiombined....'-""o""'
J'
Lisr Of Figures(ConL)
FigureB-z
SeasonalPatrcm of larval northern anchovydensities'
all yearsiombined
B-n
FigureB3
Seasonalpattern of larval queenfisbdensities'all
B'28
Figrre 84
FigureB-5
Figure8-6
il#;'db'il;a:.-...............
Densities of northern anchovylanae at Impact and
Control sitesftom 1979to 1986--....."
Densities of queenfishlarrraeat Impact and Control
sitesfrom L979to1986-.-.-..-.
Densities of white croaker lanae at Impact and Control
sitesfrom L979to1986-.---....
FigureB-7
FigureB-8
FigureB-9
Densities of arrow gobylarvae at ImPact and Control
sitesfrom 1979to 1986..--..-..
Densities of shadowgobylawae at Impact and Conuol
sitesfrom 1979to 1986..:.-.-..
Densitiesof cheelspotgoby-lanrzeatlmpact and
Control sitesfrom i979-to i986.
B'29
B'30
i
B-31
t
B-32
B-34
FigureB-10
Densities of jacksmelt larvae at Impact and Control
FigureB-11
& Controlsites
Densitiesof total frshlarvaeat IFPacty;;-."*bine{.....-..--.-.
8-36
FigrrreB-12
at $p"tt &-Conuol
Densities of northern qPchorry^larvae
ar'v""'scombined
"" B-3'7
Figrre B-13
Densities of wbite croaker lanraeat Impact
'rt?'rf""886............
-----:.---
ff"?iiilu-iilJiilJiizTilii'be-;a-ro;
& Control
to 1986andfor all yearscombrneo
minusanchowat
Figrre B-14 Densitiesof total fish lawae1986
ImpactA Conuoffii"s conUin"dfor 1979to
anti for all vearsco-dlinJa-r"""o""""""""e"""'
&C'ontrol
lantqqg!Impqct
FigureB-15 . Densitiesof queenfrsh
igsoanilforallvears
iii.iiooiui"io t6t rs?i to
combined
Figure8-16
B-3s
for1e7iltiiidd,-datr;u
combined
iiio*i6ilu-ii"ati";.h;io9y""It"snledfroml'e7e
e'r'o'oro'ooir
Unis 2 and3
Annual Pattem of opeptio"s aI.SONGS
rg18""""'
r-u"rii:fiile;efii5i;
between
I
I
I
T
I
B-38
B-39
840
B-41
I
I
t
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
.l
I
r''
rl
il
'l
,l
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
'l
,l
tI
:l
I
I
tl
T
l
I
I
List Of Figures(ConL)
FigureB-17
Ooerationsat SONGSUnits 2 atd3 by month between
i"[i,fi"iir'gifr;;l""riirl68E:-...-
r,42
Figrre B-18
TemporalPatternof iclthyoplanktonentrainment
at ScE generating;dl;;.:.::......""
B,43
FigureC-1
Map of Fall 1986suweysites.-.-.....
Figue D-1
Processusedto estimateareaof rockyreefneed-ed
C4
niowaii:rEiGf.tt dlLi uv5oNGS""""""""' D-14
to replace
This pageintentionallYleft blank
I
T
I
t
I
t
I
I
l.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
,l
II
I
I
I
t
,l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
REPORT ST]MI\{ARY
has substantial
The Saa Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (SONGS)
in the San Onofre
adverseeffects on local fish populations and organisml living
lead to reductionsin
Kelp Forest; it is also calculatedtbat local lossesof fish lawae
Tbeseeffectscould be
someadult fish populationsin the SouthernCalifornia Bigbr
losses and replace lost
mitigated by a combination of techniques that Prevent
30 possibletechniques
resources. This report evaluatesthe feasibility of more than
information for the
for mitigating the effectsof SONGSand providesbackground
madein the Marine Reviewcomrrittee's Final Report
mitigation recommendations
to the California CoastatCommission
mitigating the effecs
In its Final Reporl the MRC Presentsnro options for
respondsto the directivein
of SONGS. Option L Changesto the CoolingSystem
for nrecotnmending"' any
CCC Pennit 183-73that the 6snmittee be responsible
2 znd 3" (condition
gfuangcS
it believes necessaryin the cooling sysrcmfor units
coolingqyste4 conversionto
8.4). Tbe Committeeconsideredtwo chongesin the
the only Committee member
cooling to\pers or moving the discharge;Dr. Fay is
and no member recommends
recourmendingthe constnrction of cooling tolrters'
Mitigation respondsto the cccs
moving the discharge. option 2: Preventionand
promisingmitigation measuresand to
1979resolution requestiqgthe MRC to snrdy
no net adverseeffect on the marine
reco'mend measures"to assurethere wourdbe
environment.*option2consistsoffivediffereuttechniquesforreducingor
for mitigating the impacts to the San
mitigating fuh losses and one technique
operations during periods of high
(1)
avoid
community:
Forest
Kelp
onofre
volume of water flowing through SONGS'
abundanceof fish tanae, (2) reducethe
xru
n
(3) constmct an artificial reef (4) restore a coastalwetlan4 (5) reduce the in-plant
loss of juvenile and adult fish by ia5t^lling sonic devices,urercurylights or other
four
devices, and (6) create a kelp bed. Different combinations of the first
techniques could each result in complete nitigation of tbe Bight-wide fuh losses'
The Committee unanimorsly recommendsthe adoption of Option 2'
by
In this sumlnary, loss prevention techniquesare discussedfirst, followed
13'
lsshniquesfor replacinglost resources.The last chapterof tbis report' Chapter
sinceChapter13briefly discusses
the MRCs nitigation recourmendations;
discusses
provides a
the advantagesand disadvantagesof the most promising techniques,it
of the
useful summaryfor tbe reader who doesnot require a detailed review of all
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
techniquesevaluated.
Loss Prevention
to
Althougb many different loss-preventiontechniqueshave been developed
developmentand
reduce impacts associatedwith power plant cooling $Etems' most
SONGS or are not
testing has fOsusedon power plants that are much smaller tban
to evaluate tbe
located on the coast of a temperiate oceaq making it difficult
severaltechniques
feasibility of uing tbese techniguesat soNGS. In spite of this,
the lossesassociated
merit further consideration, and it seemsfeasible to reduce
with the operation of SONGS.
xw
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
Intalcc
:t
I
il
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the intake flow at soNGS;
Fish larvae,juveniles and adulu are entrainedby
periodic beat ueatments of the
in addition, juvenile and adult fuh are killed during
coutd tikety be reduced by
seeling systeu,- The loss of juvenile and adult fish
sgnic devicesand merctry
instAfing sonic devicesnear the intakes and by instafling
(FRS)' Sonicdevicesreduce
Ughtsin the collestion area of the Fisb Return Sprcm
they would probably be most
entrapment by figbtening fish awayfrom the intakes;
anchovy' Mercrry lights
northern
as
such
species
schooling
effective for transient
into the collection bay of the
would attract fish that had already been entrapped
during normal operation' but
FRS; they would improve tbe effectivenessof the FRS
during heat treatments(whicb
their greatestvalue might be for reducingfish losses
fhb killed in tbe plant)' Botb of
acconntsfor about Zavo ofthe total biomassof
to implement' but their
tbese techniques would be relatively inexpensive
required at SONGS'
effectivenessshouldbe field-testedbefore tbey are
on or passthroug! the traveling
Many fisb are killed when they are impinged
and juvenilesr cannot actively avoid
screens. Some of these, especially larnae
they must be physicatlyexcludedby
entrainment; to redue tbe los of these fisb'
located at tbe intake or at the traveling
sometlpe of barrier. The barrier could be
SONGS,usingscreensor other barriers
screens.At tbe high fl6y ratesthat oceurat
(e.g.porousdikes,infiltrationbeds)toexcludefishattheintakewouldPresent
(especiallythe removal of debris)' &d
maintenance
effestiveness,
with
problems
screeDsat tbe traveling screens
increased pumPing requirements. small-mesh
other modificatisDs might ninimize
would retain larvae and small fisb' and
xv
impingement losses; however, this technique has nary
potentid
technical
rfiffisulties and questionableeffectiveness,so it is not recommended'
Dischoge
The nrbid p\rme resrlting from the dischargeof water through the difhsers
Kelp
of SONGS UniC 2 and3 has cased the los of resogrcesat the Saa Onofre
Bed (SOK), including gant kelp, kelp bed fish' and benthic invertebrates'
plume or
Modifications to the diffusers could reduce the turbidity of the discharge
to the
move the plume avtay from the sensitivekelp bed habitat' Modifications
amount of turbid
existing diffuser s),stemwould reduce turbidity by reducing the
gncertainty about the
water entrained into tbe plume, but there is considerable
but
effectivenessof these modifrcations; there would likely be some ls6aining,
costly (up
reduced,impact to SOIC Moving the dischargeawayfrom SOKwould be
impacts of
to several hundred millisn dollars), but would ccrtainly eliminate tbe
effecl (Moving
SONGS' dischargeon the kelP be4 and would have little adverse
Within existing
the dischargewould not reduce the impacts of SONGS on frsh')
would be a single'
engineering constraintsnand asSgmingthat the new disc'harge
somewhat
point discharge rather than a difhrser, the dischargecould be moved
or moving the
farther of$hore, or upooalit or donmcoastfrom SONG$ Modi$ing
beca'se lessmixing
dischargewould require a variancefrom the thermal standards
plume would impinge
with ambient seawaterwouldresrlt, and in somelocationsthe
on the shore.
imFacts to soK
Althougb moving the dischargewould sliminate ongoing
someresidualirnFac6tothekelpbednightstillneedtobemitigated.Becausean
I
I
I
t
I
i
I
I
r
I
I
t
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
,I
.I
-
imFacs to'the kelp
artificial reef with kelp could adequately mitigate
recommended'
commgnityfor a much lower cost,moviqg the dischargeis not
I
'l
'l
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
Replacmten of cooling sYstent
cycle sseling would
Replacing the existing cooling qntem with closed
of water used
minimi-e impac,tsto marine resourcesby gfeatly reducingtbe arnorrnt
that seemfeasible at
for cooting. However, the only closedCyclesssling $6tems
(from salt drift and some
SONGSinvolve cooling to\r,ers,which haveenvironmental
(high profrles' noise)
discbargesto tbe ocean), safety (gfound fog), and aesthetic
for constructionand
costsas well as high financial costs($500million to $1 billion
to reduced efficiency of
an additional $1 billion over the lifetime of tbe plant due
technologieshave not
the towers). Also, some of the most suitablecoolingtower
there would be logistical
been demonstratedon the scaleneededfor SONGS,and
cooling towers would be
problems (e.g. SCE does not or*'nthe land on which tbe
built).
M odfuinSPlan oPerations
reducing the volume of water
The loss of fish larvae could be decreasedby
plant operations at specific
that passesthrougb the cooling systeEl Cfrrtaifing
reduction in impaca. Fish larvae
critical times could rezurt in a disproportionarc
April than during the rest of the
are far more abundant during February through
in March and April could
year. Eliminating the florr of water througb soNGS
by 25 billion laRrae'antting the
reduce the amognt of fuh larvae kifled by soNGS
techniquewould be minimized by baving
esdmatedlossesiD half" The cost of this
soNcs,lgfuglingandmaintenancescheduledforthisperiod,althoughthereare
,rvii
t
time cverY
technical and logistical dif6culties with having SONGSrefuel at the sarne
year or everyo$er Year.
Reducing tbe flow of water througb SONGSwhile the plant oPeratesat full
power would also reduce tbe number of frsb lan'ae killed by SONGS' Reducingthe
volume of water flowing througb the plant by about one'third apPearsfeasible'
the
althougb this would reduce tbe effrciencyof the plant by about}Va Reducing
and cost
flow by oae-third from February to May would reducelan'al lossesby 26Vo'
about $5 mitlion peryear for both unialosses'
The MRC hasrecommended,as one possiblemeansof mitigatingfish
of time
decreasingthe number of larvae killed each year by reducing the arnount
the flow
SONGS operatesduring periods of high larval abundancesand/or reducing
of water through SONGSor other SCE coastalpower plana.
RePlacinglost resources
mitigatedby
If lossescannotbe prevente4then SONGS'imfac'tsmustbe
resourceswitb
replacinglost resources.We co:lsidertechniquestbat replacelost
resources
identicalresources(in-kindnitigation), andthosethat substinrtedifferent
promising replacement
for lost resources(out-of-kind mitigation). The most
wetlandtechniquesare constnrctingan artificial reef andrestoringa coastal
xvru
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ll
l,
l,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
r
,l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,l
:
,l
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
t
Artificd Reds
reefs can srpport communities of fish'
natural reefs' The
imrertebrates and algae that are similar to those forrnd on
and algae)
production of sessileand sedentaryreef organisms(suc;has invertebrates
produced by (as opposedto
is increasedby artificial reefs, but the anount of fisb
is clear evidencethat
attracted to) anificial reefs has not been determined. There
gfowtb' are enbanced by
some aspects of production, such as recnritment and
from increased fishing
artificial reefs, but there may also be negative effects
reefs has focused on
mortality. Most concern about fish production on artificial
scraPmaterials; a large
small artificial reefs and artificial reefs constructedfrom
the limitations
artificiat reef constnrctedfrom quarry rocikwould likely circumvent
many different qpes of
of these small reefs. A large artificial reef could fumish
resourcesfor fuh' Fish
babitats and microhabitar and an increasedvariety of food
properly designed a*raa
on a large one' Fishing
tbat are transientson a small reef migbt remain as residents
would not be as attractive to
mortality night be reduced on a large reef since it
concentratedin a small area'
fishermen if fisb deusitiesare lower and fish are not
it seemslikely that an
Thus, despite the unresolved question of fish production'
location of a nat'ral reef would
artificial reef tbat mimics the size,configurationand
natural reef' The MRC has
provide suitable in-kiDd mitigation for inpacts to the
asin-kind mitigation for imFac'ts
recommendedthat an artificial reef be constructed
to the kelp forest comnnrnity(seenext section)'
will involve a higher degreeof
using artifrcial reefsfor out-of-kind mitigation
mitigation because(1) there are no
in-kind
for
use
their
than
uncertainty
scientific
on artificial reefs and (2) there is
quantitative data on tbe amount oi trsu produced
no agreed-upon metbod of determining the relative values of the fish killed by
SONGSand reef resources. Nonetheless,properly designedartificial reefs certainly
produce resources,aad so represen! along with wetland restoration' one of the two
best available techniques for enhancing marine resources. The MRC has
recoErmeDdedthat 3 high-relief artificial reef be one possiblemeansof nitigating
fish losses,&d has estimarcd(usingmethodsdescribedin Appendix D) &at a 6Gha
artificial reef would provide adequate mitigation for the fish losses caused by
soNGs.
IGIp bd cteation
Kelp beds are a valuable marine babitat in SouthernCatifornia For impacts
bed
tbat result in tbe degradationor destnrctionof a kelp bed, the cleation of a new
or restoration of the existing bed is the most straighdorw"arAmitigdtion technique'
the
Restoration of the affected portion of SOK would not be zuitable because
imFact is ongoing;the creation of a new kelp bed is preferred.
substrate'
Giant kelp (MaoocystisWrTqa) almost afuva]ratUchesto a hard
hard zubst'"tt'
so attempts to create new kelp beds have focusedon providing trew
reeB, when the
s'ch as an artifrcial reef. Giant kerp bas grcwn on sweral artifrcial
but very
kelp eitber recrgited natgrally to the reef or was PurPoselytransplante4
attempt to create a
few new, self-sustainingkelp bedshavc been created' Thts, any
uncertainty involved'
new kelp bed as mitigation Eust recognize that therc is
partiorlar, tbe location
r{owever, stepscan be taken to minimize the uncertainty. In
reef appear to be
of the tew Maoocysrrs bed and the design of tbe artifrcial
importanf
to create a
Despite limited successin the PasL it should be possible
I
I
I
t
I
I'
I
I
l'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'l
I
t
I
'l
I
I
l
'l
'l
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
In addition' an
persistent, self-sustainingkelp bed gnder the proper conditions'
The MRC
artificial reef will Produce other reef resources(seeprevious section)'
to mitigate
has recommendedthat a 120ha anificial reef with kelp be constnrsted
for the estimated80 ha of kelp lost from SOK
Wetlotd restoruion
restoration could
SONGShas no direct effectson wetland habitats; wetland
wetlands' but it
provide some in-kind mitigation for fisb speciesthat use coastal
would mostly provide out-of-kind mitigation.
Coastal wetlands are rare and
effort by state and
valuable babitats in Southern California' and there is a major
wetland would produce
federal agenciesto restore degradedwetlands. A restored
important habitats for
Barine resources, inclurting fish; it could also provide
and educational
endangered species and migratory birds and valuable aesthetic
resources.
in higb demand and
Coastal wetland sites in Southern California are
for most sites' Thus' it
restoration/enhancementplans havealreadybeen developed
be restored as mitigation
may be dif6sult to find an aPProPriatewetland that could
faetor in determining the
for SONGS' effects, and land or*'nershiPis a major
of soNGS' impacts' The small
feasibility of usingwetland restorationfor mitigation
SouthernCalifornia Edison is
portion of tbe Hgntington Beach Wetland ownedby
wetland is technically possible' a
one alternative; althougb restoration of this
before it could be applied as
number of obstacleswould bave to be overcome
anount of credit to be assigRed
mitigation for soNGs, including determining the
for the restoration.
for
A rrifficult problem inherent in using wetland restoration as rnitigation
(e'g'
SONGS' effects, once again, is assigning a rmlue to dissimilar resourccs
midwater fish and wetland habita$ so &at values of the lost and gained resources
not been
can be balanced. The scientifrcbasisfor asy evaluation methodologr has
has
well develope4 so sone zubjective evaluation wifl be Decessary' The MRC
judged that restoring 30 to 60 ha of coastalwetland would be one possiblemeansof
I
I
]
t
mitigating the impactsof SONGSon fish.
Othq Techniques
a fish
In some circumstances(i.e. where jwenile production is liniting),
juvenile fish that
hatcherycould theoretically replacelost fish resourcesby providing
frsh stocls is
could be releasedin the wild. Tbe use of hatcheriesto enbancemarine
There are
a recent development,and its feasibility is just beginningto be evaluated'
of using a fuh
at least two seriors technical problems that limit the feasibility
marine fish have
hatcheryas mitigation for frsh lossescagsedby SONGS' First, few
all speciescoua be
been raised in a hatchery sinration It seemslikely tbat nearly
of time and money'
raised in a hatchery but probably not within reasonablelimi6
Eany marine fish
Secon4 little is looum about tbe 6itical factotl liniting
smolts' the
populations. For example,despitea large production of hatchery'reared
col'mbra washington
successof enhancementprograns for salmonidsin British
information about the life
and oregon has been limited. It is clear that much more
dynamicsof the populations
histories of marine fisb the Processesunderlying the
before it can be determined
and the nanrl'e of potential bottteneck$ is neccssary
population Btindly restocking
wbether a hatcbery could evenPotsftally enbancea
apoputationfromahatcheryhasahigblikelihoodoffailure.
I
I
t
I
I
I
i
t
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
t
are coastal land
Three other potential out-of-kind mitigation techniques
These could
acquisition, information acquisition, and water quality improvement'
midwater fish) that are
be appropriate for mitigating impacts to resources(sucb as
to generally accepted
diffrcult to replace in kind. However, tbey do not confonn
packagerecommendedby
nitigation guidelines and are not Part of the mitigation
the MRC.
Monitoring
SONGSmust be
All of the techniquesfor replacingresourcesimpactedby
similar impacts
consideredexperimentalbecausetheir successfuluse in mitigating
crucial to monitor any
has not been demonstrated. For this reason, it is
implemented technique
implemented technique. The criteria for successof each
c:rn ununbigUously
must be clearly defined so that subsequent monitoring
contingencyplan so tbat a
determine successor failrue. Equally important is a
oftheoriginalmitigationplanresultsinitsmodificationorthesubstinrtionof
a new plan that preventsan unnecessarylossof resources.
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
pul
-t
I
This pageintentionally left blanls
i
l
l
I
It
I
t
I
l,
t
I
I
I
l
t
I
I
I
T
I
a
CHAPTER 1
t
INTRODUCTION
I
I
I
I
I
potentially be
This report evaluatesthe feasibility of techniquesthat could
Generating Station
used to mitigate the adverseeffects of the san onofre Nuclear
wasto provide
(soNGS) on the marine environmenl Initially, one aim of tbe MRC
T
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the sesling rystem of
information to tbe CCC concerning possible sfuangesin
the California Coastal
SONGS to prevent or. reduce any adverseeffects. In 1979,
without requiring
Commission recognizedthat some effects might be mitigated
of
glang€S in the cooling qystem(Fischer IgTg). In this rePort' the feasibility
plant are consideredalong
techniquesthat do not involve stnrcturalchangesto the
technicalsupportfor
with those that do. The purposeof this reporr is to provide the
its Final Report to the
the mitigation recommendationsmade by the MRC in
California CoastalCommission
Beforetbefeasibilityofpotentialmitigationtechniquescanbeevaluated'the
in the Final Repon
impacts from soNGS must be identified. Theseare Presented
totbeccqwithsrpportingdoourentationintheTechnicalRepors;this
information is zummarizedin Section13'
that could be used to
After tbe impacts have been identifie4 techniques
Three sourceshavebeen usedto
mitigate them need to be defined and evaluated.
in this report' Firt' snrdiesinitiated
identify the particular techniquesconsidered
directly related to mitigation (Sheehy
by the Marine Review committee that were
1981,ThumetaLtg83,Arnbrose1986a,1986b)orrelatedtopartianlartechniques
1983b' 1983c' Allen et aL 1984'
(Lockheed ocean science Laboratories 1983a,
t
Cbaptcr 1
DeMartini1987)werereviewed'Most
Ambroseet aL 1987,
Ambrose!987a,1987b,
a
of theseshrdiesfocgsedon artificialreefs,althougbAmbrose(1986b)considered
wide range of techniquesthat could be applied at SONGS. Second'ideaswere
involvedwitb mitigation'esPecially
solicitedfrom anddiscrssedwith manyagencies
I
f,
f,
fi
tbe CaliforniaDepartmentof FishandGame(CDF&G), the U'S' Fish andWildlife
we
service (Fws), and the National Marine Fisheriesservice (NMFS). Thir4
exa:ninedthe relevant literature; this was partiorlarly important for identifing
an
potential techniquesfsr reducinglosses(SectionI). Throughoutthis process'
attemptwasmadeto identifyinnovativenewtechniques.
techniquesthat
section I (chapters 2 througb 6) of this rePort discusses
or
couldreduceresogrcelossescausedby SONGSby modifyingthe coolings)'stem
glengeS.
non_stnrctural
techniquesthat
section tr (chapters7 through12) of this report discusses
lost dueto SONGS.Chapters8
couldcreatenewresourcesto replacetheresources
andfish
througb 11 evaluateartificial reefs,ketp bed creation,wetlandrestoration
in ctapters 8 and9)
hatcheries.creating a kelp bed on an artifrciarreef (disctrssed
Onofre Kelp forest
could serve as in-kind mitigation for impacts to tbe San
out-of-kindmitigation
community. An artificial reef could alsoserveas primarily
techniquesevaluated'
for frsh irnFaGtscausedby soNGS, 4 could the other
Chapter12discrssesvariousothertechniques'
(Cbapter 13)' discussesthe
The final section of this report, SectionItr
madein the Final Report to the
technicalbasisfor tbe MRCs recommendations,
of soNGS' This sectionis
california coasralcornmission,for mitigatingtbe effects
I
t,
I
I
I
I
t,
l,
htroduction
t
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
recoFmendations
intended to provide supPortirg documentationfor the mitigatioB
in tbe Final Report to the CCC'
1.1 Ovdrviewof mitigation
operation of the
Many developmentProjects,including the constnretionand
imFacts' Tbe
San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, result in environmental
meansof allowing resource
concept of mitigatingtheseimpacts has developedas a
quality' There is no
use, in spite of i15imFacts,while maintaining environmental
from the National
universally accepted definition of mitigation, but definitions
wildrife coordination Act
Environmental policy Acr (NEPA) and tbe Fisb and
directed specifically
(FWCA) are commonlyused. Becausethe F'IVCA definition is
at frsb and wildlife resources,it is reproducedhere:
lossesto a project
"Mitigation' means (a) lesseningwildlife resour@
lossesthrough the
througtr lossprwention measuresand (b) affs9$igg
nse of other stucturA and non-struc.turAmeasure$
a project to
T-oss preventiod means designing and implementing
avoid adverseinPacts uPonwildlife resources'
'Compensatiou" means comPletel]' (i.e. LNVo) gtrSegifg losses to
wildlife resourcevalues"'
agencf cbargedwitb prinary
Tbe Fisb and Wildlife Service,as tbe federal
hasdevelopedan offrcial Mitigation
responsibilityfor evaluatingimpactson wildlife,
The statedpuriose of this policy is "to
Policy (copy appendedto Ambrose 1986b)'
Protectandcorsewethemostimportantarrdvaluablefisbandwildliferesources
Nation's nan'al resourcesn(usFws
while facilitating balanceddeveropmentof the
I
I
Chapter 1
are (1) that
1981,p.7644). The fundamentalprinciples ggiding the F'WSPolicy
valued resources;and (2)
avoidanceor compensationbe recomurendedfor the 111ost
scarcity of the
that the degree of nitigation requestedcorrespondto the value and
compensationare
habitat at risk Two fundanentally different t,?es of mitigative
resources that are
distingUished. In-t<ittd replacement of resources involves
play similar roles
physically and biologrcally similar to'those being altered and that
resources involves
in ecosystem function, whereas o6'of-lcind substinrtion of
in any number of
resources that are pbysically and/or biologcally dissimilar
is generallypreferred' especially
characteristics(Ashe 1982). In-kind comPensation
1981)'
for highlyvaluedresources(USFTWS
rests with the
In Catifornia, the authority to require mitigation measures
CDF&G' FWS and
permitting agency, although a number of agencies(such as
and helping to develop
NMFS) sente in an advisory capacity by cornmentingon
in C:'lifornia do not
proposed mitigation Plans. Althougb the different agencies
general philosoptry used to
have a formal, coordinated mitigation policy, the
guidelines establishedby FWS'
evaluate mitigation proposals follonn the federal
form of mitigation' especially
Thus, loss prevention is generally the most desirable
phasesof a project" Inwhen this can be implemeuted during the pre-construction
desirableform of compensation'
kind/on-site replacement of resourcesis the most
generallyless preferred' However'
witb out-of-kind substinrtion of resourcesbeing
for presewation by both local and
wetlands have been accordedsucha high priority
federal agenciesthat wetland restoration is
viewed asa relatively valuable mitigative
action, evenif it is out-of-kind'
4
l
I
I
I
i
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
'l
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
]
I
T
I
t
l
I
t
Inrroduction
its application in the
In spite of Californil'5 ssmmitment to mitigatioq
Most local coastalprojeca
marine environment is a relatively recent development.
or wetlands (Table 1-1)'
that have required mitigation have involved harbors,baln
babitat around soNGS'
Tbese habitats are very different from the open coastal
of tbese projects'
Furthermore, babitat destnrction has been the primary impact
to habitat degadation'
whereasthe impactsof soNGS are more varied. In addition
of resources'eventhough
the entrapment of fish at soNGS resultsin the direct loss
it doesnot alter the midwater habitat.
12 Monitoring
mitigation
A significant obstacleto recommendingand evaluating'possible
lack of relevant information'
techniques in tbe marine environment has been tbe
mitigation is a relatively new
Perhapssome uncertainty is inevitable, since coastal
by the general absenceof
phenomenon,but the problem is certainly exacerbated
that have been implemented'
follow-up or monitoring snrdies for techniques
can be madetowardsmore
Without a critical evaluation of a technique,no progress
the future' Furthermore' witbout
effective implementation of that technique in
of a partiarlar techniquecannotbe determined'
follow-up studiesthe successfulness
in a sinration such as the open coasr'
Follow-up sftdies are particularly important
previously'
where few mitigation techniqueshavebeen implemented
snrdies to be an important'
I have considered monitoring or follow'up
In somecase$such as pneumatic
integral part of most recommendedtechniques'
witl be neededto confirm that they
guns and mercury lrghts, the follow'up snrdies
providetheamountofmitigationprojected;oncethisbas.beenconfirmed,
q,
I
-
Chaptcr I
t
l.'i
€F
C rlr
z
4
F
iF
,9t
&
E'ei't8'38'3i:r
vl
€
o\
t s Es ;s Eg 3 .gias ig ia €B i Fe
z
F
F
e
E
I
€
z
=
'tt
5
€
''E
I
5
.g
€
tr3
!
GI
-:
(D :
?o
€
ll,
P
Fir
E
c
€
o0
=
.)
--cS
a
z
E
04
E=
Eglx
>F-E
*OY
OEH
L
IE
E
-a,
€
c
I
-r|
I
'
b
c
O
I
3
E
€
tt
r{
i>s
FO=
I
E
qFl
on
ni
EE
FI
t
o
U
Hst
9E
O.F
I
I
l,
g^
siE
fi!
€Er l E E
q
i;-?
?5e
E.::
;=
.H=
EE
E3 EE
Ff
F:
Ft
€
€
I
?I+a
srin
?3ta
sEEn SEEfi Eh
sB
i=i*':
!!
Eui*
EuE"
*==$- i=-eEFE3?g
Er,
E=
;5?a 5s E:
al
I
0
l-
lr
E;; Bei **F!ggFE?;:E= t
s3iEaiEe3iE$Ei?s:!
4
E
a
FI
!E.
i.
Eg
EE
i?E
EEr
€€i
EiEEgEi$a EEsEss
f,
r,
4
tn
iEI EgE
:g:AEgsF
2
;)
l.
F
Zz
5
oll
E=g
!EF.C
ra 65C o-
6&88
I
l'
t
t
I
I
I
I
-l
Istroduction
t
5
I
4
F
.g
t
T
l
I
I
t
E$
z
EE
x
"aee
-r
.Et
E
!.iot
Ll,C'
ii
E= 3s, i1a
;€
E5i
s€E
r=3
c
E
E
TD
!rr9
E;g
gEE,i
EiEE
iiifu
Eig?
ea:E
E:Es
5g€E;
5€EEB
-E
3€E!
sg:i
-69V
E ?€r
€
=
€gRE
EE*E
4
L-
-i
.E:
=3C
o s'E
E
sal
E
'tr
€a*E
iE,eBEcciEgEE
z
t
a!
E:*E;Fg
EEEF3[
&
I
I
I
I
HE
.la;Et. E.*i€ Ec
z
t
I
l
I
I
€ oF€
I
q,cl
iio
EP
Fs
z
F
YZ
I
E
o
trl0Y
i>s
l-O=
!l
E
t
-,c
Fo!
>Fe
lro
a
.:E
t=
E€
Ae
aro
E4
^s
!t
eE
Er
<E
gb
vA e4
E'
c. FJ
o r';
eE
l2
F-
F
a
EI:
,:;E
;s:
g
trF
E
EE
*3=
g\6
>r
=
ti
Eor
4!-
e.F
a
>.9
E9;
€
r=g
ln
g
C
a
"E
t
a,, o
>
b
!t
E
a
ub
!b3
;'E
3
3=
r<5
Eii=
:uu-BeE
;EsiSrgai!es?
I
Chaptcr1
been defined
additional monitoring will not be necessary.Specific objectiveshave
technique
for most o&er techniques,with Eonitoring needed to confirm that tbe
of the
has achieved its objestive. I have discussedthe objectives and an outline
monitoring neededalongwith eachrecommendedtechnique.
are not
Note that there are other recommendedmonitoring programs that
20 of the
related to mitigation techniques. Tbeseprpglarnsare discussedin Chapter
MRCs Finat Report to the California CoastalCommission
t
i
I
t
13 SummarXof resourcelosses
The operationof soNGS has affectedorganismsthrougb two
I
I
I
I
maln
frsh' that are
mechanisms:(1) kiuing organisms,especiallyimmanre and adult
plume that
taken into tbe plant with the coolingwater, and (2) creatinga ffibid
Bed (SOK)' These
affectsthe kelp, fish and invertebratesin tbe SanOnofreKelp
the associated
lossesare discussedin detail in the Final Report to the CCC and
andTable 1'2.
TechnicalReporsi we briefly s'nrnarize the impactsin this section
in SOK
The MRC has measuredadverseeffectson the kelp community
Tbe area coveredby
including gant kelp, frsb, and large benthic im'ertebrates'
on averageby about 80
moderateto higb densitykelp in soK hasbeenreduced
that wouldhaveoccurredin the absence
hetares(ha), or 6}Vobelowtbeabundance
bared sandbass
(e'9 sheephead'
of SONGS. Fish living near the bottoh in SOK
70vo (toughly 200,000frsh
and black zurSerch) have been reducedby about
baveocetsredin the absenceof
weighing25 MT) belowthe abundancethat would
grchinwere
of 13speciesof snailsandof thewhite sea
SONGS.The abundances
T
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
T
n
Inuoducrion
I
I
I
EEE
l
I
I
I
g-€
tro
=T
=Gt
t
t
)\
c.E
F.
\r
tr=
5E
tr
e-G|
(J
U
U
o
-oE
c
./DZ
E-
g
E
{r
=
X
U
g
€fr
!t
tr
-g
i9,
tod,
.L
c)
o
u,
\
\
c)
x
i)
t
c)
4)
,a
\
()
q)
t
G'
G
z
tr
u,
E
t)
6rE
.!,
F(:
oe
-sE
t
HIAE
.)
-a
ra
(n
o
3!
S
F
a)
v,
,I2
Fr
N
X
A
rx
\0
4)
€
'5;
G'
F
.E
9.
VY
J
G'
3
T?
E=
n)
I
E
()
.gi
tc
B.
G
ES6
'9,:
a)
th2
oE
a)
.9
EE€ =E
a)
FE
;
=
.a)
E
I
v)
z
U2
;E
b
r.l
€€E:
!!
I
E
u2
t
o
.J
e)
&
5
I
c?
&
EE
e
+hr=3E
E
E
E
:=
x
t)
E
U)
e)
U)
G'
tt
0
e)
?
g
(,
G
co
tr
EI
o
I
b
tr
o
1'
G
o
0
a)
u,
EI
g,
{)
x
a)
E
6
'E
o
Be
tx
tD
U2
t)
I
GI
.)
.!
a)
v)
F
1)
I
'
o0
c
G
C)
o
z
G'
g
'=
0
s
g
Eg
;f,FE
'Ef :
.: niE E
€€ v, =FE H
EiiFisE
€
L
o0
E
a)
!flfiEt
E{? =2 ?
, ;i -F
E l'-Ea-es
E
U2
I
i;EE€
O
9
.a,
o
o
?€ E EF
c
c
vt
q)
t)
EI
HEEH5=
'l
I
l
Y,g
th
-6
o$l
I
I
I
I
I
I
o
€<rI1
v)
t
t
o
€
-€
{2
E
E-b
e
s
Z €
.=E
()
o
I
1)
v
t)
v
,n
E
g
v)
at)
u
T
.!
9.
(!
(.)
3g
.t)
q
Cbapter 1
below the levelsthat'would bave
also reducedzubstantiallyQAVo-9OVo)
occurredin
the absenceof SONGS.
The MRC calculatesthat there is a substantialimpact on the standingstock
reductionsin
of a ngmber of fisb populations in the SouthernCalifornia Bight. The
a loss of
standing stock are probably between one and ten Percent' rePresenting
severalhundred tons in standirrgstock
some
The MRC has also measureda reduction in the local abundanceof
reducedby
midwater fish populations. The local abundanceof queenfishhas been
2'3 km from
between30Vo and70Vo,dependingon location' out to a distance of'
A similar
soNGS, relative to the abundanceexpectedin the absenceof soNGS'
SONGS
redustion occtsred in white croaker, but over a smaller area In addition'
This estimate
kills at least 19 metric tons (MI) of fish Per year in i15intake systetrL
long term the
was made in a period of depressedfish abundance'and over the
anount killed will be about 51 MT Per year'
which no substantial
other parts of tbe community that were snrdied and in
animalsassociatedwitb
adverseeffectswere found are: the zooplankto& a rmge of
thb soft sediments' semi'
sandy bottoms (including invertebrates living in or on
sand cTabs' some
planktonic organi$$ and bottom-dweuing frsh), &d intertidal
as a result of soNGS'
groupsassociatedwith sandybottoms inceased in abundance
operations.
I
I
I
T
l,
r
l
J
n
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
10
i
lstroducrion
I
I
l
I
I
I
t
l
n
t
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
1.4 Literature Cited
pilot snrdy on the
Alleg LG., C.P. Onuf and M.S. Love. Lg84. Results of a
hatibut in the
distribution and abundance of young-of-year California
1984'
vicinities of Alamitos Bay and San Onofre-Oceanside,May'June,
Report to the Marine Review Committee'
Evaluation' Report
Asrbrose,R.F. 1986a.Artificial Reefs. volume L Review and
to the Marine ReviewCommittee' 186pp'
for mitigating
Anrbrose, R.F. 1986b. An evaluation of alternative techniques
Report to the
impacts of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station'
Marine ReviewCommittee. 168PP'
and nanrral reefsin
Ambrose,R-F. 1987a Comparisonof communitieson anificial
Report to tbe
Southern California witb emphasison fuh assemblages'
Marine Review Committee'
related to mitigation: Fastors
Ambrose, RF. 198?b. compilatibn of information
of gant kelp' life history
influencing the recruitment, grourtband persisteuce
tectrniques for seagrass
surnmaries for nearshore fish species, and
restoration. Report to the Marine ReviewCommittee'
Ambrose, R.F., M.L Patton and S.L swarbriclc
1987' comparison of fisb
assemblagesonnanrralandartificialreefsinSouthernCaliforniaReportto
the Marine ReviewCommittee' 48 pp'
11
Chapter 1
Ashe, D.M.
Lg82. Fish and wildlife mitigation:
description and analpis of
estnarineapplications..CoastalZone Motagementlounal l0: 1'52.
DeManini, E-E.
tg87. The effects of operations of the San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station on fish. Final Report- Report to the Marine Review
Committee.
Fischer, MJ-
tg7g. Statr recommendationson radiological dischargemonitoring
and conditions to be addedto pennit A 153-73for the San Onofre Nuclear
Power Plant
Memo to tbe State Commissioners,November 9, 1979'
C-aliforniaCoastalCommission-
t
l
f'
I
t
il
LockheedOcean ScienceLaboratories(I-OSL). 1983a PendletonArtificial Reef'
Benthic and fisb communitydevelopment,September1981- November 1983'
Final Reporl Volgme I. Report to the Marine Review Committee'
Iockheed Ocean ScienceLaboratories (I3SL).
1983b. Pendleton Artifrcial Reef'
sildy, Final Report' Volume tr. Report to tbe
Pterygophoratransplantation
Marine Review Committee.
t
I
t
t
t
Lockbeed Ocean ScienceLaboratories (LOSL). 1983c. Successionon Pendleton
Final
Arrificial Reef: AD artificial ieef designedto suPPotta kelp forest,
Report, volume ltr. Report to tbe Marine Review committee.
t2
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
t
t
t
I
Introduction
and habitat
1981. Artificial reefs as a means of marine mitigation
Marine Review
improvement in Southern California. Report to the
Sheehy,D.
Committee. 68 PP.
Thum, AB.
1985. Technical review of
'Artifrcial Reefs: VoL I' A teview and
committee'
analysis,"preparedby Richard Asrbrosefor the Marine Review
Mitigation: Final
Thum, A, J. Gonot, A. Carter and M. Foster. 1983. Review of
Report. Report to tbe Marine ReviewCommittee' 78 pp'
Fish and Wildlife
United StatesFish and \ilitdlife Service(USFWS)' 1981' U'S'
"
serviceMitigation Policy. FederalResstqa6($): 7 64'4-7663
t
I
I
I
il
J
I
t
I
I
13
Chaprci 1
This pageintentionallYleft blank
p
I
J'
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
SECTIONI
LO SSREDUCTTONTECHNIQIJES
1:
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER2
INTRODUCTION TO LOSS REDUCTIONTECIINIQUES
for mitigating an
411 things being equal, the most preferred technique
''
techniquesthat
explores
section
This
impact.
the
avoid
to
is
impact
environmental
the loss of resources'
could potentially reduce the impac-Aof SONGSby preventing
changesto SONGS'
One class of techniques consideredhere involves structural
Stnrcnrrd changes are
althougb noD-stnrctural techniques are also included'
(permit 183-73)specifically
reviewed becausethe operating permit for SoNGS
(including the construction of
indicates that modifications to tbe cooling system
substantialadverseeffects
cooling towers) could be consideredin order to reduce
on the marine environment.
of the local biological
The only technique tbat would cenainly eliminate all
of soNGS' Although this
effects of SoNGS would be to stop the operation
it would not mininize
alternative would eliminate local environmental effects'
generatingstatiors'
becausePowerwould haveto producedat other
regionaleffec,ts
Uke SONGS' SCE s other
whicb night cause greater environmental impacts'
so fish larvae and older fuh
generating stations use once-throughcooling systems'
soNGS producesvirnrdly no air
lifestageswould be killed during their operations.
would provide hasto be producedby
pollution; when SONGSis offline, the power it
Basin' Even though scE would
one of scE's oil and gasplans in the Los Angeles
available first (8. Mechalas,penonal
use the most fuel.efficient plant that is
emissiorsin the Basin aswell ashigher
communicati,on),this would result in greater
District is very concernedabout
costs. The South C-oastAir Quality Management
would need to aPProveany alrangement to
and
Basin,
the
in
emissions
increased
F.
Cbapter 2
penonal communication)'In
run SONGSless and Basin sations more (Mechalas,
shutting down SONGS
the context of the entire Southern Californian environment"
perhaps more severe'
would be expensive and would result in different, and
environmental impacts.
reduce tbe impactsof
A secondloss-reductionalternative that would greatly
SONGS from an open cooling
SONGS on the marine environment is to convert
way to convertSONGSto
systemto a closedsptem (Chapter5). The most obvious
towerswould reducethe amount
a closedsystemis to build coolingtowers. Cooling
so would virnrally eliminate
of seawatertaken in and dischargedby SONGS, and
to increasedsedimentationor
impingement and entrainment lossesand lossesdue
8d would largely shift
nrrbidity. However, cooling towers are expensive,
to the terrestrial environment'
environmental effecls from the marine environment
impacts would affect human
Increased ground-level fogging salt drift and other
safetyand terrestrial organisms'
Theremainingtechniquesforpreventingresorrrcelossescarrbecategorized
struc$ral chongesto the discharge
system,
intake
the
to
changes
stnrcural
as
system,and nonstructural changes'
(Ctapter 3) would be designedto
stnrcnrral cbangesto the intake system
the plant or to retun entrappedorganisms
prevent organismsfrom being taken into
or
substantialrossesdue to entrainment
suffer
to
rikely
most
are
Fish
to tbe ocea&
juvenile
is designedto minimize the loss of
System
Return
Fish
The
impingement.
(seeTechnical Report c)' Therefore'
and adult fish, and it is reasonablyeffective
reduce the
intake systemwould be those that
the most important changesto the
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Inuoduction to lossrcductiontechniques
that might reduce lanal entrainment include:
entrainment of fish lanae. Qfoanges
intake barrier
modifying the traveling screens, infil63dqa beds' Porous dikes'
very promising'
SlStems,and relocatingthe intakes. None of thesetechniquesseem
would be designed
Stnrctural sfoengesto tbe dischargerystem (Chapter 4)
near tbe
primarily to eliminate or reduce increasedsedimentationand/or nrbidity
set of techniques
present diffgsers. These techniquesfall into two categories. One
of sedimentit
modifies the existing diffuser q6tem in order to reduce tbe amount
there is uncertainty
entrains. Severalqpes of modifications seem promising, but
the tlpe and/or
about their effectiveness. The secondset of techniqueschanges
bed areas'
location of the dischargein order to avoid the sensitivehard bottom/kelp
of soNGS on the
changing the location of the dischargewould eliminate the effects
obstacleswould
San Onofre Kelp forest communiry,but technical and regulatory
teqhniques,conversion
have to be solvedand the costwould be high. (A third set of
to closed-cyclecooling is disclssedaboveand in chapter 5.)
tbat would reduce
Nonstnrctural changesinvolve awide variety of techniques
would reduce the number
a variety of different imPacts. Someof tbesetechniques
most promising norstntctural
of organisms taken into SONGS (Chapter 3). The
to reducefisb
gunsand ligbt sJ|stems
cbangesto the intake qEteE include pneumatic
would not be feasibleat
imprngementand beat-treatmentlosses. Other techniques
barriers designed to reduce the
soNcs, inctuding tbe following behavioral
bubble curtainsand water jets'
entrapment of juvenile and adult fish: eleetric fields,
(Chapter 6) tbat could reduce
Finally, there are changesto the operation of SONGS
reducing the amount of water passing
losses. The most promisrngof theseinclude
schedulingsoNGS to be shutdown
through tbe cooling systemat soNGS, and
i
Chagter2
in
some of the techniquesevaluated in section I have been disctlssed
body
previous rePorts to the MRC (e.g.,Ambrose 1986),and there is a substantial
power plants'
of generalinformation about reducinglosses(especialtyfish losses)at
Southern California Edison has also sponsoreda number of snrdies specifically
I
I
I
I
I
and l:rson
directed at evaluatingpossibleloss-reductiontechniques(e'g', Schuler
et aL 1980'
1g75,I-awler, Manrslcyand Sketly Engineers tg/g, L982,Thomas
t
workshave
McGroddyet aL tgSl). In additionto thesesnrdies,a numberof generd
1981'
been reviewed(e.g.,Hanqon et at. lgn,Hocgtt et 41.1980,Dorn and Johrson
I
I
of kelp
during periods of high abundanceof fish.lanae and/or high probability
recnritmeBl.
Micheletti 1988).
This sestion is comprised of five chapten.
This cbapter (Chapter 2)
tbe intake
summarizesthe design and operation of SONGS. Chapter 3 discusses
losses(velocitycap
systemat SONGS,including existingtechnologiesfor reducing
be effestive' Chapter
and Fish Return Sptem) and potential techniquesthat night
to the existing
4 diss'sses the discbarge qnteq including possible modifrcations
existin9 cooling system
sJ^tem. cbapter 5 considersthe feasibility of replacing the
modifications to the
with a closed-cyclecooling sJEteELFinalln Chapter 6 disclsses
Each chapter includes a
operation of SONGS that could reduce resourcelosses'
and,where possible'a rough
discussionof the technical feasibility of eachtechnique
migbt be saved' An attempt
estimate of its cost and the amount of resourcesthat
and reasonablefrom those
hasbeen made to distinguishtechniquesthat are feasible
mitigation are discussedin
tbat are not; the actual recorlmendationsregarding
SectionIn.
18
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Iatroduaion to loss rcduction tcc'hniqucs
2.1 Summari of SONGSOPerations
for reducing
The first step towards developing or evaluating techniques
and how it interac$
impacs from SONGS is to understandhow the plant operates
summarizesthe relevant
witb the phpical and biological em'ironments.This section
Generating Station' and
design and operation features of the San Onofre Nuclear
SONGS' Much of this
briefly discusseshow the dischargeaffectsthe water around
Report; in partianlar'
information is reported in more detail elsewherein the Final
L The more detailed
physical oceanographyis presented in Technical Report
feasibility of some of the
description of the cooling syste6 neededto evaluatethe
techniquesevaluatedhere is presentedin AppendixA
usedto cool the reactors
SONGSusesan oPencoolingsystem;oceanwater is
(MW)' while Units 2 and3
in each of its 3 rurits. Unit t oPeratesat 436Megawats
through a single intake located
each operate at 1100lvf\il. Unit 1 takesin seawater
seg The cooling water Passes
907 m offshore at a maximum flow rate of 22 mtf
raised about 105€ and is
through condensers where the temPerature is
located 750 m offshore at a
subsequentlyrenyned to ttre oceanat a Point discharge
intake strucnrreslocated 976 n
depth of about 7.6 a. Units 2 and3 bave seParate
theseunits oPeratesat a maximum
offshore and 200 m aPart alongshore. Each of
about 9"G and discbarges
flow rate of about 523 mslseq raising the temperanre
water back through diffusen'
begin about 1795 m and 10&4rr
The diffuser systemsfor units 2 atd 3
unit 2 diftrser is located2?0 m upcoastof
offshore,respectively(Figure 2-1). The
m in lengthand has63 dischargePorts'
the unit 3 diffuser. Each diffirseris 750
19
I,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cbaper 2
FishReturnConduit
Dischorge
unit2
unit3
-:
"r"L
OffshoreIntskes
Diffus
I
B.
DISTANCE FROM SHOREIN IOOO FEET
7
-\
UnifI Dischorge
E
207
{-F
-
30=
11
40 H
-t
50
/
ers
60
vlew(B) of the
-g (cross'shetf)
ptan
vlgw(4) ?ndslde
-onorre
Ftgure2-1: Expandeg
the
hiJear gniratingStarionshowing
coasrarregroniiiti- sin
pipe
r6rlrf5ollc5 untts,ihe discharge for
of u;1-nia1E-pipes
otacemenr
tdr Untts2 and3'
imtti ino thediftusers
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
lntroduction to lcs reduciou techniques
0'8 m3/sec
The individual jets have an initial diameter of 05 m' each discbarging
the bottonr' are
with an initial velocity of 4 m/sec. Ports extend 22 m above
alternatelyalignedatanglesof+25ofromthediffrrserlines,andtiltupwardsatzv
from tbe horizontal (SCE 1981).
mixing of the hot
The diffusers were designedto provide efficient thermal
ambient seawateris
dischargewater with tbe cool ambient water. Inweak cturetrc'
tines greater than the
entrained in the dischargeplgmes at a rate that is 7 to 10
rate of up to 550 m3/sec
cooling systemflow, creating a total dischargeplurre flow
ctrn rise to more
for each of Units 2 and3 @ischer4 aL LgTg). The enuainment
least 90Voof the water in
than 20 t mes the dischargein strong currents' Thus, at
The initial upward
tbe plume is entrained by the flow of water from the diffrsers'
tbe dischargetowards
momennro* due to the tilt of eachjet, and beatedwater carry
will spread at the surface'
the surface. In weakly stratified water, the plume
In the summermonths'
achievinga thicknessof 3-5 m within 1 km of the diffrser1
the plume never reaches
thermal stratification is occasionallyso pronouncedthat
water' the plume reacbes
the surface; due to rapid mixing with the cold bottom
extendsseveral hundred m
thernal equilibrium at mid-deptbs The plgme often
stretchup to 2 km beyondthe
offsbore from tbe end of the unit 2 dihrser, but it can
the plume is frequently directed
diffgser. Due to the prerrailingdoumcoastcuren1q
to\ilards the SanOnofre KelP Bed'
The designof the diffuser hasbeen optimized
for thermal dispersionin order
tomeetstaterequirementsfortherrraldiscbarges.Turbiditylevelsinthedischarge
the increasedturbidity in the
plune were not consideredin the design. However,
plume has negativeeffectson the marine environmenl
t.
Chapter 2
The coast at SONGS is unprotecred and the area is hydrodynamically
of water that
compler Ircal circglation pattems are determinedby tbe interastion
beds'
flows into and out of SONGS with local curren8, toPograPhyand kelp
are rarely
LongSbore currents are faster than 5 cn/sec about half the time, but
and the
faster than 25 cn/sec Much of the flow is due to reversingtidal curents,
2 wfsec
mean drift is only about 4 cn/sec doumcoastin summer and about
have been
downcoastin winter @eitzel 1988). Flow Pattemsaround the diffusers
by an
investigatedempiricatly with the releaseof dyes(EcoM 1987)and described
a complete
analytical model (EcoM 1988). Neither of these snrdies provides
only surface
description of the flow patterns around SONGS. The dye stgdiesshow
depth profile
flow on a given day. The model usesa simplistic linearly increasing
the effects of
and a simple constant ambient cgrrent model and does not include
of the water that is
nearbykelp beds. However, the studiesseemto agreethat some
offshore'
entrained in the plgrre comesfrom inshore,but most comesfrom
water'
The water in the plume is generallymore tufbid than the surrounding
of sestonand the
The bigber turbidity in the plume renrls from the distribution
increasestoward the shore
source of plume water. seston ooncentrationgenerally
of seston The plume is
and tourard the bottom becausethese are the sources
water tbat is entrained by
formed from water tbat is dischgged from the plant and
the diffusers bas a higher
the dischargedwater. lvater tbat is dischargedfrom
because the intakes are
seston content on average than the surrounding'water
is more nrbid' Tbe sediment
located inshore of the diftrsers, where the water
6 mg/l (range: 2't5 ag/l); at full
concetrtration of intake water is tpically arognd
are transPortedthrough the
flow, approximately 54 metric tons (MT) of sediment
plume comesfrom closer inshore
plant per day. Water that is entrained into the
I
I
I
t
I
j
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
rl
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Innoductioa to lcs rcductionterhniqucs
entrained water mixes
and lower doum than the anrbientwater it displaces. As the
water column' where it
with the dischargedwater, it warms up and rises in the
displacesthe lessrurbid surfacewater.
/
water and inshore
The relative contributions of sedimeng from bottom
However' it is clear
water, or dischargedwater and eutrainedwater, are Dot known'
sedimentsin the plume
that sedimentsin the intake water cannot acco'nt for all the
concentrationsof 7-12
water. Measurementsof sedimentsin the plume indicate
water in spite of the fact
mg/l,wbicb is sligbtly higber than concentrationsin intake
If only water that
that the intake water is diluted ten-fold by water that is entrained.
plume watel would be
was relatively sediment-freewas entrained, the turbidity of
much lower than hasbeenmeasured'
z3
Chapter 2
This pageintentionally left blanlc'
I
I
CHAPTER3
t
INTAIG SYSTEM
I
I
I
I
I
3.1 Loss reductiontbchniquesnow in use
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
to reducetbe lossof fishat SONGS:
SCEalreadyemploptwo'techniques
velocity capsand a Fish Return Sptem'
cap.
is fitted with a velocity
Each of the intakes for the three units at soNGS
of the intake for
The cap is a concreteslab supported tzm abovethe opening
(Figrre 3-t). It is designedto
Unit 1, a,,dz2m abovethe openingfor Units 2atd3
into the intake would
produce a horizontal flow freld; without a caP'the flow field
or escaPefrom a horizontal
be vertical. It is supposedlyeasierfor adult fish to avoid
dependson size and species'
flow freld. The ability of juveniles to avoid entraPment
so the verocity capshave
Lanrae generanycan not es€pe from the intake current,
little effect on the entrainmentrate of lanrae'
Variors rePor6 (ThomasA aL $fj},Iawler,
Manrsky and Skelly Engineers
capsreduce the entrainment rate of
\ILZ,EPRI 19S4)have indicated that velocity
instanation of verocity caps reduced
adult fish. weigbt (1g5g) concrudedtbat
ag}voreduetion in fish rosseswhile
annual en*apment by gilvo. scE (1974)fo'nd
period after the caP was removed'
a cap was in place compared to an l&month
a velocity cap reduced cntrapment of
Schuler and Larson (1975) reported tbat
the general oonsensushas been that
anchovyby 85-90voin the laboratory. Tbus,
fsh' However' several reports have
velocity caps reduce the entraPmentof adult
For
of the capsmaynot be asgreatas claimed'
indicatedthat the effectiveness
-p
I
CbaPtcr3
rtI
:, . l l
't. t-
til$fl]
I
:*fi1ll
Il$il
t$l illHl'l
i. I
g
rt
U
-a
a)
oo
EE
.= tt
I
-
c
oE
0
EO
el
o
a
C)
u
1fiffi'.t,
I
.lI\YF:'I
3)
o
qa
o
;E
at
,
A
Ea
r{
l.
o
=o
a)
!
d
TE CL
o'a
a
!o
'r
at
9-s
+l
rl
ll
t,
bt
tE
o
A
gg
o
Er
(!O
="3
((
tl
ij:i
;'.,..':
i:.'."':
l'.?-"
ffi')l llki.t
.:r1
{..1
1==t)
a.l
ii'.o'
r'
t'i
.'+
mS;::i
l.-l
ll
tto--o,f
gE
o
P"*
6
(,
Eg
€$E
r,s
o
sat
-l
B
c
o
-{
U.
,
t.'!
;r?
t
'.7:;-i'-ili'i}:
-:'-;''.:L
-l
o
,'t..i:
26
.t,
d
t
o
d
3
'
€aE
E=ggE:E
..E6
t--
+t
l.
at
I
5.o.o.r
l:"\': f ?:.'.-.fi
Itl.;:.-r-rt_'..1i',
;.r''
3.'-';':i -..]-J'; - ..
I
I
I
I
.f:E
o tr=
EgE
tt (,-
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
lntake SPtem
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
in tbe density and
exa6ple, Sharma (1973) suggestedthat natgral flucnratioD
by Weigbt (1958)'
distribution of fishescloseto the intake, which was not addressed
and Stupka and Sharma
is tbe most important factor affecting fish entrapment'
enhstce fisb
(Lg77) suggestedtbat the velocity caP at soNGS may acnrally
entraPment.
employedat soNGS
The Fisb Renrn system (FIIS) is the secondtechnigue
entrapped at Unit 1 are
to reduce the loss of entrapped fish. All of the frsh
through the
evennrally killed by being impinged on the traveling sseens' Passlng
heat treatments' Units 2
screensand dying in the condensers,or being killed during
diverts fish before they are
and 3 are each equippedwitb a Fish Renfn Systemthat
ocean' The FRS (Figure
impinged on tbe traveling screensand regrns them to the
(louvers)' a quiet area with a
3-2) consists of guiding vanes, vertical bar racls
sluice' The guide vanesare
collection bucket, an elevator mechanismand a return
flow of water acrossthe louvers
aligned witb the iiseming flow and ensurethat the
reducing the Pump bead los
is uniform. Uniform flow prevents nrrbulencp th115
guide entrapped fsh into the
througb the rystem. Tbe rranesare also designedto
through the louvers that is easier
colleetion area by producing an eveD'steadyflow
can result in suddenbursts of higb
for the fish to senseand avoid. Turbulent flow
the fisb to become impinged or
velocity flow acrossthe louvers that could canse
the incomingflow and are angled at
rnjrued. The louvers are located to oDeside of
of tbe louvers are Lf 4" wide with a
about 20p towards the flow. The vertical slats
separationof3/8'.Tbelouversrotateperiodicatlylikeatarrktreadforcleaning.
Thelouversarerotatedonceashift;rotationcanalsobetriggeredautomaticallyby
(whicb would occur if material began to
a pressure difference acrossthe louven
builduponthelouvers).smallhorizontalshelveslocatedataboutone-meter
]
I
I
I
Chapter3
o
o
E
(r,
(r
I
rf)
o
(l)
U'
CU
L-
-?
I
b.9
Egl
@
-g
C)
o
E,
t-.
I
L-
o
@
GI
crl
r\
=
q)
E
=
L
g
t,8
-,8b
I
ct
I
=
Er
.E-
'c)
C'
JA
---
->r
.-F
c)i-
=
o
-o
r;
o
a>
-aA
<rl
c,
c,
(l'
.>
o
(9
c
.o
CN
E'r
I
f*-
>\
6
o,
o
t-
g'
ol
c' t-
alF
-(o
€
'=
7t
=
(J
,gl
-c,l
( Jl
.nl
L-
()
o)
E
5f
--
b
tr
a
o
dl
I
Eg
bE
cggI
6iEt
L-
,t-
o-
9E
=ctg
o
CL
gil
b
-l
$
tr)
Har
I
Eee
EtsI
I
Ea$
qEi
I
F€E
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
t
l
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Intake Systcm
of the water' Debris is
intervals oD the louvers belp lift the accumulatingdebris out
hauled away to a
wasbedwitb a higb pressuresPrayinto a sluice, and is evennrally
front of tbe purnPsand
Iandfill. Traveling screensare downstreamof the louvers in
catcb debris that passesthrougb the louvers'
area where the
Fisb are guided along the vanesand louvers into a colleetion
Uaveling screenat the
flow is a quieter than the rest of the intake area' There is a
greater along the edges
back of this area- The flow througb the collection area is
can acormulate in a
than in the center, so fish and debris (such as kelp fronds)
The water in the collection
relatively quiet zonein the centerof the collection area.
6 mx3 mx 1m deepsitson the
areais aboutg m deep. Arectangularbucket"
quite fill the collection area;
bottom of the co[ection area. The bucket doesn't
m in the ftont and back'
there is a gap of severalcentimeterson the sides andl/2
shift' the bucket is slowly
The top third of the bucket is mesh. During each 8'hour
sluiceleading650 m
(-1ft/sec) lifted out of thewater and dumpedinto areturn
as many times as necessaryto
back to the ocean. The bucket is raised and dumped
area; when few fish have
remove the majority of the frsh from the collection
emptied, the bucket might only
accumulatedin the collection area since it was last
fish the bucket is raisedsix or
be raised two or three times, but when there are urany
fiShalive to the oceanis evaluated
seventimes. The nrccessof the FRS in renrning
in Technical RePort C.
29
F
Cbapter 3
32 Struchral
changes
plant sesling
Many technologieshavebeen developedand appliedto Power
testing' A brief
water intakes; still more have been conceivedthat require further
to SONGSfollows'
disegssionof sone of tbesetechniquesand tbeir applicability
'
been proposedor
A wide variety of physicalbarriers to reducefrsb loss have
aad irrigation canalsas
implemented at hydroelectricdans, water diversionprojects
vertical traveling
well as power plants. These barriers include stationary screens'
screens'veilical drum
screens (which are used at SONGS), horizontal traveling
rapid sandfrlters (Hnnson
screens,horizontal drum screens'perforatedplates,and
in this section
discussed
et at.1977);the most commonor promisingof theseare
32.1 Tlaveling scrcenmodifrcations
usedat soNGS' form a
Vertical traveling screens(Figure 3-3), suchasthose
around two horizontal shafu;
continuousbelt of scree' panelstbat rotatesvertically
is submergedin the flow of water'
one shaft is located abovetbe water and the other
side of the screens. (At soN'cs,
Debris and impinged fiih conect on the upsueam
so the material tbat collectson the
screen$
traveling
the
of
up$ream
are
louvers
the
the slots in the lowers') As the belt
traveling s6eens has first passedthrougb
the water and washedfrom the screens
rotates, tbe debris and fisb are carried out of
whicb carry it to a collection area The
urith 3 high-preszuresPrayinto trougbs,
when
exceptduring periods of heavyclogging'
intervals
regular
at
rotates
belt
screen
the front and back side of the screen
benreen
level
water
the
in
tbe difference
automatically triggers the rotation'
I
I
I
T
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
VERTICALTRAVELINGSCREEN
. CONVENTIONAL
.SCREENDRIVE
SPRAYNOZZLES
FORCLEANING
DEBRISTROUGH
HIGH WATER
SCREENBASKETS
IOR'TRAYS"}
WATERFLOUV
l.CLEAiI
WATERFLOW
ts
DIRTY
LOWWATER
-_
:
FLOOR OF SCREEN
STBUgruBE
cof.
: schemati
Fisure3-3
S:Jl€
".ri'l[%i,ff"i5ii3'3fl.::h:ilit|;l'rT
Ec'reens,the direction ol Screel
troughandsPraYnozzles
31
I
Cbapter 3
.Fisbthatareimpingedonorpassthroughthe6gyglingscreensatsoNGS
t
of fisb
are killed. Severalmodifications could potentially enhancethe survivorshiP
screens
that contact or passthrough the scteens. The small fisb that go througb the
edgeof
could be retained by a smaller meshscreen(0.04). The lip on the lower
water to help
eachscreenpanel could be modified so that it lstqins severalinchesof
low'
cushion the impact on fish as the screen rises out of the water- A separate
pressgre spray could be added to remove frsh and lan'ae before the high Pressure
I
I
I
I
to the
sprayremovesattacheddebris; the more gentle sPraywould causelesstrauma
include
fish and larvae than the higb pressurespray. Additional modificatioru could
the screens
retrofitting the screen drive and bearing systemsto rotate and wash
an extended
continuouslyso that fish and lamae are not held agninstthe screensfor
t
renrrn the
period of time. Finally, a retum conduit would need to be provided to
impinged frsh to tbe ocean.
in
modifications
A number of snrdieshave evaluatedthe effectivenessof screen
been conducted
reducing mortality of impinged fish. Most of these studiesbave
The results showthat
in freshwater,on the East coast, or in the Pacific Northwest
is species-dependent'
when sgeeDs are nodified" zurvivonhip varies widely and
Point Nuclear Plant
Suwivorship ranged from llo for bay ancbovyat the Indian
i^"rediate zurvival rate at the
(Texas Instruments Inc. 1978) to an overall 97Vo
pasotal communicdion to l.awler,
Surry Power Station in Virginia (M. Brehme4
Manrslcyand Skelly Engineers1982)'
Alaboratorystudyoftbesuwivalof6lanlalspeciescommontoSouthern
variable as well as size' and
california waters found that survivonhip was highly
from very
(fable 3'1; Edwards a aL 1981a)' survivorshipvaried
species-dependent
I
I
t
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
T
t
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
brafe System
The effect on
low for kelpfuh to >9S[ofor large topsmelt(Edwardset 4L t98la)'
and other
long-term suwival was not tested,brrt is more relevant becarse abrasions
if they are not
damage due to impingement on screensmay be debilitating even
immediately letbal. Therefore, the effective survivorshipmay be substantiallylower
were anonalous
than the data presentedindicate. In additio& some of the results
than
(e.g, much lower survival for large cToakerat 15 cnfsec for l-minute duration
at higher velocities,Ionger durations,or a smaller size).
Table 3'1
coutrol survival (fron Edsards
Mean lmpingcneut survlvd for sir ryccies of laruc' correctcdfor
gt S6XCS ls 40 cn/sccond' - Indicatcstcsting not
gl C!. 1981a). Florvrate at the travcling *t
conductcd.
IMPD{GEMEI\TTSURVWAL AT
DURATIoN (MlN) AI'ID \IELOSTY ((Itl/s)
SPBCIES
Sr
I.ENCTII
-IM1NUTE30 otr/s
$ orl/s
CarccoRv
(ln'{)
Sndl
Medium
I.aryc
72-9J
ili3
183
SBdl
Mcdium
brgP
9JJ-fLs
14.ii-15l}
t82-n3
Aachovy
SEdl
I:rge
180
3L&370
Itulpfisb
Small
krge
14.1
7
r89
tA
Croakcr
Small
l-atge
fia
B.t-z,8
96
,8
Goby
Small
13.0
lm
Topsmelt
Gnrnion
45 s{/s
-4MImtrE15 ot'rls 30 cN{/s
45 q{/s
a
62
69
98
1m
&
I
1m
51
2t
v
3
35
69
40
lm
55
69
81
81
70
:
$
;
6
;
94
gI
1m
41
86
69
98
92
v
81
u
v
0
9
u
;
0
n
98
n
1m
y7
lm
1m
98
98
33
n
Y
i
Chapter 3
in losses
3.2.1.1Potentialreductions
for
of screenmodificationszlrenot adequate
The snrdiesof the effectiveness
The
if they were to be used at soNGS'
predictingpreciselytheir effectiveness
that screennodifications
relatively high sgwivonhips for some speciessuggest
to be oneof the few
aPPears
night reducefisb losses.Furthermore,this tecbnique
tanrallossesat soNGS. However'
strudurarchangesthat mightsignificantryreduce
Most of tbe snrdieshave
uncertaintyabouti13effectiveness'
tbereis considerable
thatwouldbe foundat SONGS'
conditions
or
species
the
of
rePresentative
been
not
foundin southerncalifornia is
larvae
frsh
on
(1981a)
cr
et
Edwards
by
The snrdy
sometimesanomalous'Od
and
variable
were
results
the
but
relevantto SONGS,
of the lanraeused' In additioq no
the snrdyonly consideredthe immediatesuwival
the
inpingedfish througha conduitto
renrrning
of
impact
the
considered
has
snrdy
by a
phprcal danagewould be incurred
nrbstantial
that
likely
seerns
It
oceaL
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
larr,qorevenadultfisbafterbeingimpingedonatravelings6een'washedoffof
flushedbackto tbe oceanthe screeo,dumpedinto a renrrnconduitand
modifredssreenswould result in
when rsed in coniunctionwith the FRS,
the
of adultfrsh. Most (about84vo)of
rates
mortarity
the
in
reducdon
onrya sma'
alreadydivertedby the FRS
are
3
and
2
units
by
entrapped
adult fish that are
Report c)' Even if soNGS' raveling
before reachingtbe screens(Iechnical
(seeTecbnical
fish (72 MT) that are impinged
800'000
the
modifre4
were
screens
ReportC)wouldnotallsulvive,sincetheywouldbesuessedfromimpingement'
of
we canmakea very rougbestimate
ocean'
the
to
trip
return
the
handling and
on survivalratesof fish traveling
data
the
using
by
saved
be
how manyfish might
I
I
I
TD
I
I
I
t
T
I
I
t
I
t
t
I
I
I
T
larale SPtcm
through the FRS ranged from
througb the FRS. Short-term (96 hrs) survivorship
large species(Table 17 of
68Vo forsmall species(exceptfor anchovy)to t}}Vo"for
mortatity due to increased
Technical Report C); these values do not include
ocean The sumival of fish
predation on diverted fuh after tbeir. release to &e
ocean would probably
impinged on modified traveling screensand renrrned to the
primarily becarse the stress on
be much lower than survival of diverted fisb'
teDd to be smaller than
imFinged fish would be much greater. (In'Pinged frsh also
rnrlnerable to phpical da:nage
diverted fish, which probably makes them more
that one-third of the 72
Assuming
discharged')
when
predation
and
returg
during
2 & 3 would be savedby screen
MT of fsh that are impinged annually at unis
2'4 MT of fish' An
-sdificarions, the savingswould amount to approximately
by modifying the screensat Unit 1
additional savingsof adult fish could be realized
killed' However' the acrrrd biomass
becauseit hasno FRS, so all entrappedfish are
possibleat Units 2 and3 becausethe
of fisb savedat Unit 1 would be lessthan that
4 MT (TechnicalReport C)'
roral biomassof fish enrapped at Unit 1 is only
traveling sceelrs stemsfrom
Perhapsthe greatestpromise for usingmodifred
of fisb rarrae is partiorlarly diffiailt to
ros
The
rarvae.
fish
saving
for
potential
their
to be the most feasible structurd
prevent, and modified traveling screensapPear
modificationtosoNcsforreducingtbelosoffishlrarrraeatallthreeUnits.
However,itseemsunlikelytbatmanylarrraecouldsurviveimpingementonascreen'
a
low-pressurewash) and return through
a
with
(even
screen
the
from
removal
tbe adual savingsthat could be achieved
conduit to tbe oce?n' Questionsabout
recommendingtbem for preventing larval
witb modified traveling s6ee1s preclude
losses.
F
Chapttr 3
3.2.1.2 Technicalfeasibilitv
&e
Several technical difficulties are associated with modifications to
screen
traveling screens.Tbe'pressuredifferential (headloss) acrossthe fine mesh
a clean
will be higher than for the existitrgscreeL For example,the head lossacross
screen
0.02. qnthetic s6een is t1'pically three times that of a conventional 3/8"
(Mussalli et aL 7981).Thls would lead to incteasedpumping cos15and maintenance'
increased
and migbt require larger PumPs. An additional consequenceof the
lower
pressuredifferential acrossa frner-meshscreenis that the water level will be
qluse cavitation
on the pump side of the screensthan the current level, which could
drive
problernsat low tides. Problemshave alsobeen encounteredwith tle scleen
periods (I-ondon
systens when continuous oPerationwas attempted over extended
to provide
1980). The screenwellhydraulicsmight alsoneedto be modifiedin order
(Lawler' Matuslcy
a smooth approachflow to enhancethe survival of fish and'larvae
and SketlyEngineers1982).
I
I
I
I
I
j
t
I
I
I
I
3.2.1.3Costs
t
range from
Cost estimates for reuofitting a conventional traveling screen
at each Unit (Lawler'
$13,800to $110,000for each of &e six traveling screens
atl of the follor'ing cost
Manrsky, and skel$ Engineers 1982;note that these and
conversionsfrom earlier
estimatesin this report are given in 1988dollars, with the
on whether or not fine
figures based on the Producer's Price Index), depending
cost
The estimatedma:cimummesbscreeningand continuousoperation is included.
cost of stnrct'ral modifications,
of $13 million for botb units does not include the
I
renlrn conduit,or plant downtime,any of which could
36
exceedthe screencosts'
T
I
I
I
I
I
l-
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
t
I
T
I
I
I
IrrtaLs SPtem
expense'To changetbe
If required, larger PumPswould involve a substastial
need to be slenged" at a
pumpiDgcapacity,the pump impellor andlor speedwould
penowt communication)' PIus
cost of several million dollars/pump (J. :Ist
higber' slightly reducing the
downtime. In addition, pumping costs would be
ef6ciencyof the Plant.
322 Infiltration beds
of a horizontal network of
Infiltration beds (or artificial frlter beds) consist
or other filter media (such as
collector pipes placed beneath nanyal sediments
water is drawn through the
gravel) on the bottom of the sourcewater body' Intake
are that the velocity of water
infiltration bed. The primary advantagesof this s)'stem
small frsb larvae and eggs'are
witbdrawn is extremely low and most animals, even
et al' 1980)' Filters of this tlpe
physically excludedfrom entering the plant (Marcy
flow rates are low (Richards
have been rlsed for many years at sites where intake
for a 1000 MW Power plant
1978), and a design concePthas been developed
requiring a flow : rte of'42sf/s (StrandbergL974)'
is the accumulationof debris'
one of the major obstaclesto infiltration beds
Porr,erand Ught Company'sMontour
A t?,m3/min systemat the Perrrrsylvania
clogging could not be prevented
because
abandoned
was
station
Electric
steam
for a washingon hrblic Power
(Marcy et a!.1980). A proposed95 m3/min slFtem
SupplySptemnuclearplantwasrejectedduetooperationalandmaintenance
the flow for units 2 ztd 3 is 3144
problems @ichards 1978). By comparison'
not beensolved;periodicbacldlushingseems
m3/min. The problem of clogginghas
Chapter 3
nrrbidity in the
to be the most promising solutio& althougb it can ca'se excessive
zurroundingwater.
soNGS in 1978
SCE snrdied the possibility of using 3s infil6alion bed at
require 160
(SCE 1981). Tbey concludedthat a nangal sand filter s!6temwould
A porou gravel
acresof bottom and 288,000ft of screenedcollectorpipe per unit'
silt and sandduring
sl6tem would require only ? acres'but it could be coveredwith
reversingthe flow of
storrns. It is possible that the gravel bed could be cleanedby
above)' Thus' the
water and/or air, but this technolog has trot been tested (see
SONGS' While this
nahral sand systemwould be required for reliable operation at
stagesand size classes
s),stemwould be excellentfor reducing entrainrrent of all life
of constnrcting
of fish and inveftebrates,the impacts on local benthic communities
and maintaining this large systemcould be extensive.
about
SCE was estimatedat
Cost of constnrctingthe infiltration bed investigatedby
glgf rniltion (t S}vo),anorder of magnitudeabovethe cost of one offshore
intake conduit (Lawler, Manrskyand skelly Engineers1982)'
323 PorousDikes
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
t
T
Theporousdikeisapermeablestonebreakrraterthatsurroundsanintake.
I
inner corecoEPosedof small
The mostcommondesignfor porousdikesincludesan
annor
layersof larger rock andan outerlayerof large
rock coveredwith successive
I
water
all
that
so
water
the
of
stoneor castshapes.The dike risesabovetbe surface
The dike is designedto reduce
I
enteringthe intakepassesthrougbthe porousdike'
the velocityof tbe intake flow' (2)
the entrapmentof organismsby: (1) lowering
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
t
I
T
I
T
I
I
T
fil8}€'
SYstcE
porous dike' and (3) the
excludingorgarismsas water is filtered througb the
behavioralavoidanceof the dikeby someorganisms'
power plants' including
Porors dikes have been used at a number of
River' but this technigue
LakesideGeneratingPIanLl:ke Nuclugenand Merced
et4I' 1980)'
remainslargelyuntested(Schraderandl(ea&ke tgTS,Marcy
tbem from the intake
Porousdikesare designedto excludefish by frltering
et at' t98Lb'Ketschke
(E'dwards
water or causinga behavioral(avoidance)response
is that fsh will bave
1981a). One potential problem with the filtering Process
beforetheyarefiltered out by
alreadypenetratedthe coarseouterlayersof tbe dike
to retum throughthe outer
the frner inner layers. To survive,tbe fish mustbe able
of a dike is too ooarseto filter
layersto openwateJ.The materialusedfor the core
dike can potentially
a
out very small organismslike larvae. Thus,while Porous
that it will not effectivelyexclude
excludeadultsof most fish species'testssuggest
larvalfish.otherbiologicalfactorsthatrequirefrrrthereraluationincludethe
of constnrctionon bentbic
potential attractionof fish to the dike and the impacts
communities.
ArangeofconcepnraldesignsforSoNGsbasbeensnrdied([awler,
dike wasdesignedto providean intake
Manrskyand SkellyEngineerslg|g)' One
for one unit The dike had a
f,ow of 56.7 m3/sec,which would be suf6cient
and rose abovethe oceansurfacc' The
circtrmferenceof approxinately370 m
wasabout0'015m/sec and the bead
dike
the
approaching
culretrt
the
of
velocity
lossacrossthe dike wasabout0'6m'
F
Chapter 3
The additional head loss associatedwith a retrofrt dike installation could
require modification or replacement of componentsof the existing intake system'
risk
The stnrsnral integnty of the dike in the open ocean environment may be at
is
The effect of long-term sediment transPort must be snrdied' Finally' tbere
must
clrrently no method for cleaning a dike so the effect of long-term lisfsuling
also be considered. Both biofouling and sedimentationcould c:uxiesevereclogging
I
I
I
I
of the dike stmcture (Keschke 1981b).
finat
The cost of constnrctionwas estimatedat $1648 million' dependingon the
of
design criteria and the material used for construction. The time and cost
snrdyingsedimenttransPortat the site would haveto be addedto this'
I
I
I
32.4 Banier systems
t
or
Barrier systemsconsistof meshnet or rigid screenmaterial placed around
the intake
in front of the intake opening. The barrier is placed at a location around
on the
where the intake gtsrent velocity is very low, so tbat frsh are not impinged
I
,screensor nets. If tbe mesh size of tbe barrier is small enougb,it could reduce the
entrainment of larvae aswell as larger fish'
at low flow
Barriers have been testedin freshwaterand estuaryenvironments
A simple barrier
rate$ but bave not been extensivelytested in the oPen oceall
probably have little
placed around the existing intake openingsat soNGS would
be so higb that larvae would
effect on larval mortality becausethe flow rate would
(such as a manifold
be impinged on the mesh. Alternative intake alrangements
t
I
T
I
I
I
I
t
lntake Systcm
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
T
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
T
serious engineering
arrangement of multiple intakes) are possible, but Present
challengesartd additiond coss.
mesh
performance of fine
A laboratory study sponsoredby scE examined the
fouling commouto
cylindrical screenswhen exposedto the qpes of debris and
The study concluded
Southern California coastalwatets (McGroddy et aL 1981)'
nacrophytic algae in less
that an offshore screenq6em could become cloggedby
reliable metbod has been
than a day, depending on ambient conditions. No
rates in an oPen ocean
developed for cleaning screensat intakes with high flow
of cleaning'whicb could
environment. Air bursts have been proposedas a method
from the screens' Flow
be effective if currents removed the debris as it is blasted
result in cloggingon the
reversal has also been proposedfor cleaning. This might
removethe debris' clogging
inside of the screens,and agaur,culrents are neededto
associatedwith anchoring
is not the only probleq there are additional diffieulties
the screensin the oPenocean.
3J.5 Moving intakes
are removed from the area
The organisms that are taken into soNGS
and quantities of species
imrnediately around the intakes. Therefore, thc tyPes
be different if the intakes were
enrained and entrapped by SONGS would likely
or doumcoastof SONGS' If fewer
Iocated in a different dePth or were uPcoast
intakes were relocated moving the
organismswould be taken into SONGS if the
the lossesdue to soNGS'
intakeswould be an effectivemeansof reducing
F
Cbapter 3
The MRC has collected data on nany different midwater tara (which are at
risk of entrainmentor entrapment)at different locationsaround san onofre, and
thesedata canbe usedto indicatewhetherlossesare likely to be reducedby moving
the intakes. The major losseswe are concernedwith here are ichthyoplankton and
midwater fishes.
In order to evaluate how the enrainment of fuh lanrae worrld changeif the
intakes were moved .to deeper water' I have compared the densities of
ichthyoplankton in shallow water, where the ihtakes are orrently located, to the
densitiesin deeperwater. Using ichthyoplanktondensitiessamplednear SONGS
(A&B
during the operational period, I have compared the densitiesnearshore
B for
Blocks)with the densitiesoffshore(@D Blocks)(Table3'2)' (SeeAppendix
greater
more details on the ichthyoplanlctonsampling desigfr") Fifteen specieshad
probably
midwater densities offshore than nearshore; these species would
water' In
experiencehigher entrainment rates if the intakeswere moved to deeper
with deep'
contrast, six specieswould probably experiencelower entrainsrent rates
losses
water intakes. Eight specieswith relatively high estimated adult equivalent
while five
(AEL) would experiencehigber entrainment rates with deeper intakes,
It appears that
higb-AEL species would experience lower entrainment rates'
of SoNGS on fish
moving the intakes to deeperwater would not reducethe impacts
larrrae.
if the intakes were
I-anral entrainment rates might conceivablybe different
are differences in
moved up- or downcoast, depending on whether there
the coast' The MRC
ichthyoptankton abund3ncesat different locatiors along
an Impact site 1'3 km
sampledichthyoplankton at two locationsalongthe coast'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
t
t
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
t
rntake Systen
Table $2
consequensesof deep'waterintslsesfor entrainment of fish lgrvae
(18A & B Blocls)
Ilata pr=sentcdar: uidwatcricbthpplanKon densltiesncar':hore
pcrio4 rcc
opcrztionel
tbe
and otfshorc (C & D Bbcf.s) oca't SOXCS durirg
ratcr
entrein
lntalcs
rbc
IntldlD Tcchrical Rcport 5. ID th?rr prcscut location,
& D
C
froo
xatcr
fron A & B Blocls; lf movtd oltshorq fbey would cntrain BoE
lf
cntrslnmelt the
Blocl6. Spedesritb the ntio AB:CD<1 would crpericucc8llacr
tntsbs are morrcdto dccpcrratcr.
I.ARVALDEI{SITY
No./1m M3)
SPECXES
Califomia corbim
Blach croalcr
Sanddab
Friageheadsp.
Yellos'c.hinsculpin
Bay goby
Unid. blenny
Northera lanPfish
Northera anchovy
Queenlish
White croakEr
Diamond turbot
ChccltspotgobY
arrow gotry
Sharlon,gpby
Jacksoclt
C.aliforaiagruoim
Califomia clindtsh
Recf finspot
Unid. LclPfish
Giant kclpfisb
A&BBLOGS
9r4
1380
yn
257
fil
TNA
C&DBIJOCI$
4r,l,.4
4frI25
r269ts
TM
utn
16954
77lXB5
75W7
99125
t94tl
t43498
ztlrffi
765tU5
695f/JB
63301:}
?fin
2W
3(B0
2938
3450
ilw
1r.st
gtv
4''8
8366
11019
14541
xzt
Lva
w5
8219
1?81
M
3595
n55
'tl
Relo
AB:CD
0.o2
0.03
0.(B
0.o3
0.(X
0.04
0.(B
0.(B
0.10
0"11
0.16
0"60
0.71
045
090
L.gl
2.Sl
L76
3.JJ?
3gl
?.m
F
Chapter 3
from SONGS'
downcoastfrom SONGS and a Control site 18.5 lm dowucoast
data for A' & BParker and DeMartini (Technical Report D) re rewed MECs
were no consistent
block densities at the two sites, and concluded that there
and Control
differences between them- Ichthyoplankton densities at the Impact
the two sites;
sites are presentedin Appendix B. There were differencesbefiPeen
more commonat the
for exarnple,white croaker, iuTowgoby and shadowgobywere
site' However'there
Control site, while jacksmeltwere more commonat the Impact
were not different betweenthe
were no consistentdifferences,and total abundances
or downcoastwould
two sites. Therefore,it is unlikely that movingthe intakesuP
reduce the entrainnent of fish la:rtae'
the entrapmentof
Finally, it is possiblethat moving the intakeswould reduce
compared'thedensitiesof
older lifestagesof fish. To examinethis possibility,I have
the operational period
midwater fish in shallowand deepwater near SONGSduring
(deep water) stations'
(Table 3-3). Ten specieshad higher densities at offshore
more specieswould apPear
while 14 specieshad lower densitiesoffshore. Although
that would benefit is
to benefit fron deep-water intakes, the number of species
would not walrzlnt moving
small and it seemsgnlikely that this slight improvement
lossesthat would
the intakes @aniorlarly in light of the higber ichthyoplankton
result).
the intakes could reduce the
In conclusion,it does not aPPearthat moving
entnainmentor entraPmentof fish by SONGS'
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
T
I
I
I
l
I
I
t
t
I
Intake System
Table $3
of midwater lish
consequencesof deep-waterintalcs for enrspment
(ss catfl pcr unlt ctrort CPttE)
Data prcscDtedare midmtcr tisb abundances
dTitrg the opcrstional
ncarshorc fshallod) ard ottshore ed"tP1-;d-SOxcs
lntalcs
l.' l" O.it Pttsc't location' the
Dcriod; scc Intcrim fcOnicaf Rcport
mort dccp ratlr'
wouta
entraln shallow t"toi ff noved of"notq tlcy
grt3ggr GntnpEcot lf thc
Spocieswith tbe ratio'sballow:deep<1tJtfitipiti*ol
tntabs arc noved to dcePerratcr'
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
t
I
I
T
T
FISHABI;I\DAT.ICE
(cPttE)
RArro
SPE@s
Barred sandbass
PacificsardisP
Pacificma*crel
Bat ray
Jacl maclercl
Rormd hening
Kclp bass
Salcna
Whitc scapcrch
Whitc scabass
Paeificbarracuda
Whitc croaker
Sharpclia flYingfish
Quecnfish
Pacifrcbunarfish
DeepbodYanchory
California halibut
Catiforniasco'rPioa5sh
Sargo
Nortbera aachory
SilvcrsidcssPP.
Wdlaye surfPcrch
California corbina
Ycllowfin croakcr
Snau-ow
0.m
1.(B
4'g3
oa
6f7
L.fl
0.(B
380
0.13
0.fi
3n
t-s;l
030
fi'.93
337
020
0.10
0.10
0.10
$18.8rt
rzm
0.60
on
sa
Dg
0./A
?sffi
39.42
1.10
?p59
L79
0.fi
8.m
o24
0.10
234
,&
0.17
2'955
L62
0lrt
0.03
OIB
0.(E
%Lgl
2y
0.10
0.(B
0rn
STIALI,OW:DEEP
0.m
0"04
0.13
021
0"23
0.42
0.43
050
054
0.70
L37
1"t10
LJ6
L93
2.$
?#
333
333
333
4.47
5"13
6.m
gJX)
t
t
Cbapter 3
33 BehavioralBarriers
have been
ln addition to physical barrien to entraPment' variou lsshniques
reduce
proposed or implemented that take advantage of fuh behavior to
species and
entrapment rates. Fish behavior varies greatly among different
condrtions'
lifestages of Esh and is influenced by environmental and physiologicd
for all speciesat
making it difficult both to find a behavioral barrier that will work
under partiarlar
all times and to predict bow effective a technique will be
to test and
circrrmstances.However, behavioral barriers tend to be less expensive
techniques'
implement tban stnrcttrral barriers, &d so g2rnbe valuable mitigation
of fish include
Behavioral barrien that have been proposedto reduce entrapment
screens'and
lighq sound velocity gradiens (which are used at soNGS), bubble
electric barriers (Hanson4 al- 1977).
33.1 Sonicdevices
each
have been entrapped
OveraI, J.f minien juvenile and adult fish (36.9 MT)
the Fish Renrn
year in Units 2 asd 3 (Final Technical Report C)' Although
fisb' nearly 800,000(72 MT)
system (FRS) diverted about 8lz'of tbe entrapped
(3 MT) killed during heat
fish were impinged on the traveling screetrs'66,000
divenion througb the FRS. sonic
treatnents, .trd 411,000(4.g MT) did not survive
the intakes, sonic devices night
devices night reduce these losses. Placed near
inside the plant sonic devices
reduce tbe number of fish entrapped at SONGS;
the number of fisb impinged on
might direct more fish into the FRS, reducing
travelingscreens(especiallyduring heat treatments)'
46
I
T
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
t
I
t
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
Iotakc Sptco
can startle fish and
Soiric devicesprovide 3 high-ga$ry acousticoutPut that
of sonic deviceshave
alter their behavior near the device. Several different t)?es
common device is the
been proposed for reducing fut enfapment. Th.e most
firing chamberand
pneumatic gUD,or'!opper", which stores bigh-pressrueair in a
wave in the
then explosivelyreleasesit througb portholes to cf,eatea soundPressure
speakers'an arcrange of 200 to 2000psi. Other sonic devies include underwater
nfunmms1n,
gnd a'fishdrone. (McKinley et al' 1987)'
gnq an impast devicecalled 3
I have foqrsed on them;
Since most work has been conductedon pneumatic gurls,
aspneumaticgunswith
however,the harnsrerhas the potential for being as effective
McKinley and Patrick
better reliabitity (McKinley et a1.1987,Patrick et al' 1988'
(Smith and Anderson
1988). Broadcastunderwater sogndgenerallyis not effestive
1e84).
Their
fish awayfrom an area'
Sonic devicesrely ol fisb avoidancebebaviorto keep
the characteristicsof a
effectivenessdependson hon'a speciesrespondsto
to certain frequenciesand
partianlar device;for example,somespeciesmay respond
from the sourcs of the sound
not otbers. Becausethe fish must actively svim away
effest on the entraimrent of
in order to avoid entraPEent, sonic deviceshave little
larrtae.
pneumatic guns; they do not
Fish bave been shown to avoid areas with
short'term (EPRI 1984)' Long-term
become habinrated to the sound over the
been tested' If habinration occurs'it
habinration is a potential problem but has not
reside in the vicinity of tbe intakes'
would most likely be restricted to fish that
northern anchovy indicate that white
Results of a snrdy on white croaker and
gun
anchovywere still respondingto the
croaker habinrated fairly quickly, but the
I
Chaptcr 3
night be most
after five hours of testing (Norris et al. 1988)- Pnegmatic guns
anchovies)away
effective in redirecting tralsient schoolsof fish (such as northern
of alewives
from the intakes. They have been nrccessfullyused to exclude schools
Patrick 1985)'
from the intakes at the Pickering Diversion System (Halnes and
make up
Pneumatic gunscould be very effective at SONGS,sinceschoolingspecies
Report C)'
a large proportion of the fisb entrappedin the plant (seeFinal Tecbnical
I
I
I
t
& Electric at
Pneumatic guns were tested by Central Hudson Gas
Dlpamite was
Danskasrmer Point (Lawler, Manrsky urd Skelly Engineen 1984)'
t
intake trash racls'
used initially to break up frazil ice that acsunulated on the
for breakiug up
Subsequently,powerfrrl pneumatic gunswere found to be effective
I
pneumaticguDsas a method
the ice without killing nearbyfish. The effectivenessof
by comparing
of reducing en6apment of fish at the plant was evaluated
rates from previous
impingement rates with pneumatic gUnsin use to impingement
slightly lower when
years when dpamite was used. Inpingement rates were
saldy are inconclusive
pneumatic guns were in use. However, the results of this
ab'ndance of fisb between
becausethere was tro control for changesin the local
dpamite yearsbecause
years. Also, impingement rates could be bigber dgring the
could not escaPefrom the
frsh that were stunned or killed by the dyna:nite blasts
intake cturent.
IntbeEid.1970's,sCEsupportedapilottestofpnerrmaticguns(Schulerand
ia the Long Beach Generating
I:rson 1975). A pneumatic gun was deployed
the forebay at the time becagsethe
Station forebay; there was no flow through
gpn was cycled continuously'fish
Station was trot operating. When the pneumatic
in open areasreactedmore dramatically
avoided the area within 3 m of the gun; frsb
I
I
I
I
I
T
l
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
t
I
T
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
l
t
IataLe SYstem
of
and Larson also report two sets
than tbose in more protected areas. schuler
intake of tbe Redondo Beach
obsewations of tbe pnegmatic gun at the offshore
grrn' the dense concentration of fish
the
of
operation
Upon
Station
Generating
After three hours of continuou
within 3.7 m of the device vacated tbe area
and
near the pneumatic gun' Schuler
operation, tbe density of fish remained low
'sufficient stimulus to reduce
produced
Larson concluded tbat the pneumatic ggn
fishconceutrationswithinal&ft(3n)radiusofthedevice.'
requestedthat SCE perform a
(EPRI)
Instinrte
Research
Power
Tbe Electric
1985'
SCEs Redondo Beach station in
more extensivetest of pneumatic guns at
is
testing Devertook place' This testing
Preliminary plans were developed,but the
sritical to the final evaluationof this conc€Pl
of sonic devicesand other
Several studies have comparedthe effectivenes
found pneumaticgunsto be more Effective
bebavioral barriers. Patrick et 41.(1988)
hammers
McKinley and Patrick (1988)found
ughB.
strobe
or
c|Iltains
bubble
tban
strobe ligba for sockeyesalmon
than
effective
more
be
to
guns
and pneumatic
especially
et ar. (1988) found that strobes,
smolts. on the other ban4 Matousek
effective;
or pneumatic gnns' were most
wben combined with bubble @rtains
at duslg
under certain couditions,srcb as
effective
only
were
arone
guns
pne'matic
and alewife
and especiallyfor blueback herring
i
Chapter 3
3.3.1.1 Potential reductions in losses
in the
Sonic devicesmight be effective at two locations: at the intakes and
of savingS
screenwellsinside the plant. The types of fish saved and the amount
would differ at the nro locations.
reducing
At the intakes, sonic deviceswould probably be most effective at
possibility of
the entrapment of transjeut schoolingspecies,sincethere would be no
by SONGS
habinration with these species. Schoolingspeciesthat are entrapped
spotfrn
include northern anchovy, queenfrsh, jacksmelt, white croaker, salema'
grunion' Some
croaker (aggregatesfor spawning),walleye surfperch,topsmelt and
than othen
of these schoolingspeciesare more stronglyschoolingor more 6ansient
For example'
and some would undoubtedly be more susceptibleto sonic devices'
per Y€8' might be a
northern anchory, with 42 million (4.8 MT) fsh entrapped
periodically move
prime candidate for sonic devicesbecauselarge anchovyschools
that much of the
into the area of SONGS' intakes. The enuapment data indicate
are entrapped
anchovy entrapment occurs when very large numbers of anchovies
happensto pass
over a short period of time, apparentlywhen a school of anctrovies
reduce this entrapment
too close to an intake. sonic devices might be able to
substantially
and
sonic devices' McKinley
There are few data on the actual effectivenessof
a hammer and 66Vofor a
Patrick (1988) rePort a diversion rate of,75% for
migfating salmon smolt at a
pneumatic gun when used to gulde downstream
1 m/sec' No sttrdieshaveestimated
hydroelectric plant, evenat culrent velocities of
environrnent' which is likely to be
tbe effectivenessof sonic devicesin the marine
I
I
I
I
I
l
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
T
Inta},e Slrstem
I
I
T
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
on the efEciencyor
quite different. Since there are Do relevant guantitative data
many lossesthey might
effectivenessof sonic devices,it is diffrsult to estimatehow
reductionsin losseson the
be able to prevent. I havebasedmy estimatesof possible
to keep in mind horv little
nine schosting specieslisted above, but it is important
information theseestimatesare basedon'
Thescboslingspecieswereentrappedatarateof5'486'142(24'8MT)fish
effectivenessof 1074'
per year (Final Tecbnical Report C). If sonic deviceshad an
(25 MT) frsh per year' At L0Vo
they would reduce entrapmentby about 550,000
not be entrappedwould be
effectiveness,420,000(05 MT) of the fish that would
At 50Vo effegtiveness'
anchovies and 110,000(1.4 MT) would be queenfisb'
weigbing 12'4 MT' a substantial
entrapment would be reduced by 2.? million fsh
not be entrappedwould be
reductiou. z.Lmillion (2.4 MT) of the fish that would
In terms of the fish killed by
anchoviesand 560,(D0(7.1 MT) would be queenfish'
entraPment of schooling fisb
SONGS UniS 2 and 3, z 50Voeffectivenessagainst
weigbing 5'4 MT' The totd
would reduce the fisb killed by 608,000individuals
million (15 MT) to 66em0 (9'7 MT)'
entrapmentrosseswourdbe reducedfrom 127
in biomasslosr These savings
z 4Sroreduction in number and a 36Vo redueion
soNGS kills more fisb than we
tetm'
long
the
over
if,
larger
substantially
be
would
c reports tbat tbe long-term average
bave measured;for orample,Technical Report
be 52 MT/year rather tban tbe 19
fisb kiu from soNGS Units 1, 2 and 3 could
MT/year we havemeasured'
optimistic' altbough the few shortFifty-percent effectivenessmay be overly
appropriate testing could reveal an even
term tests indicated high effectivenessand
gunsachieveda16Voeffectivenesin
higher effectiveness.For exartple,pneumatic
i
Chapter 3
1989)'
excluding alewives at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station (EPRI
However, for this evaluation.50Vois taken as the uPPerlimit of effedivenessupon
which to basepossiblelossreduetions.
an
sonic devices could also be used inside the intake screenwells as
additional technique to reduce fish losses. If thesesonic deviceswere not operated
fish
continuously, they migbt increasethe efficiency of the FRS by directing more
migbt be
into the FRS. As with mercury lights (seesection 9223.L), sonic devices
heat
most effective during heat treatments. The fish that are killed during
water
Beatmen6 apparently do not move to the Fish Renrn Systembefore the
used to
temperatlye m the screenwellsbecomesfatal. Sonic devices might be
have
frighten frsh into the FRS, wbere tbey could be removed safely' Sonic'devices
this use has
never been proposed for this Purposebefore, so their effectivenessfor
since heat
not been tested. However, the potential benefits are imponant'
by soNGS
treatmenrs comprise a sizable portion of the entraPmentlossescaused
valuablefrsh
(SVobynunber and{}Voby weigbt at Units 2 znd3) and larger' more
possiblereductions
are killed druihg the heat treatments. A rough estimateof the
in heat-treatnent losses,given in Sestion333.1.1, is 15 MT.
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
3.3.1.2Technicalfeasibilitv
t
systeu15have been
Pnegmatic guns are conmercially available, and test
(E"RJ 1989). Pneumaticg'Ds
establishedat pickering Nuclear Geuerating station
the air cylinderswhich
would require routine maintenanceconsistingof recharging
pneumatic ggns as they wear
drive the pneumatic guns and periodically replacing
pickering'Nucrear Generating Station the pneumatic gun
out. During the test at
T
I
I
I
I
lntalre SYstem
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
due to worn seals' and
had some operadonal problems, primarily with leakage
problemswere encountered
required frequent maintenance(EPRI 1989). Similar
witb gun failure being
during tests at the Roseton Generating Station in 1986,
being required to
causedby wearing of the o-ring seals,and weekly maintenance
major concerns
minimi-e this problem. Maintenance problems remain one of the
(K Herbinsoq scE' pasonal
regarding the implementation of pneumatic guru
communication).
spring
gulls' The hammeris a
The harnsreris a potential alternativeto Pneumatic
similar to that of a
mass device that producesa sound that is somewhat
the end plate of the
pneumaticguq but the soundcan easilybe alteredby changing
lower than for the
deviceand the maintenancerequirementsshouldbe substantially
may exPeriencepremanre
gUn. However, there is someconcernthat the hammer
constanthammering'
failure becausethe end plate cannotwithstandthe
3.3.1.3Costs
teiting' The cost estimate for
CosS could best be estimated after field
Beacb (dso an open ocean
testing pneumatic guns for one yeal at Redondo
(EPRI 1984)' It is likely that tbe actud
ewironment) was estimated at $245,000
$500,000);this was one reasontbat
(perhaps
greater
even
be
would
SONGS
cost at
EPRI,penonalcommunication)'
tbe testingnevertook place(w. Micheletti,
l
Chapter 3
332 Electric fields
then drift away
Electric frelds are designedto momentarily snrn fisb' which
This will not
from the area of risk and recover safely dor*,nstre'm of the hazard'
draw stunnedfish
work for power plant intakesbecausethe prevailing culreBt would
limited in the ocean
into the hazardousare& Electrical scrsgningEystemsare
electric barriers are
becauseof high electrical losses(Hoortt 1980). In addition'
hazardousto humansand other animals'
T
I
I
t
I
I
t
333 Light systems
I
to or repelled
Depending on the tlpe of light, fish can be either attracted
useful for reducing losses
from a ligbt sjFterlL Two qpes of lighs systernscould be
lights'whicb repel thern'
at SONGS: mercury lights, which attrac'tfrsh, and strobe
t
t
3.3.3.1Mersurylights
fish' with merarry light
Various tyPesof light have been proposedto afiract
first snrdiesto demonsuatethe
frequently being mentioned as effective. One of tbe
by Patrick and Vascotto
potential effectivenessof mercury light was conducted
of alewife in an experimental
(1981),who found as increase of.L3TVointhe number
chambercomparedwithaconuolchanber.Inaddition'alewifewerecontinuously
period' Several recent stgdies bave also
attracted to mercury light over a 48'hr
to guide fish (p'ckett and Anderson
indicated that meranry rights could be used
but all of thesestudieshaveemphasized
1988,Taft a'I. 1988,Williams et aI. tg88),
findingS' Meranry light effeAiveness
the preliminary or restricted nature of their
but may also depend on the season
. certainly dependson the speciesinvolved,
I
I
I
T
t
I
I
I
I
Intake System
or eventhe rate of
(Williarnset a1.1988),whetherit is day or nigbt (Taft et at' 1988)'
in evaluatingthe
changeof tight levels(hrckett and Anderson1988). For examPle,
Taft et al. (1988)state:
stanrsof existingfuh'protection technologies,
species and
Merorry lights also modifred the behavior of some
behavior can
lifestagesin tbe lab and field evaluation confirmed this
attraction to
be exploited to alter fish Passagerates. Tbe field
results
mercury ughts did not alwaysprodrtt the desiredor expected
test results
in all ,p".i6 or under alt tist condifions. Therefore'
additional field
should be applied with caution and possiblyonly with
verification.
to guide entrapped
It seemslikely that a mercurylight systemcould be used
collection area' Improved
fish out of the screenwellsat soNGS and into the FRS
all times' but it would be
guidance of fsb into the FRS would be advantageousat
to heat treatments are
partiorlarly important during heat treatments' Lossesdue
and involve larger and more
important (20V0of the biomasslost at Units Z & 3)
could be realized by ustng
valuable fisb. It seemslikely that considerablesavings
mercury Ughtsto guide fisb into the collection areas'
usedin a sinration similar
To my lnowledge, mercury lights have neverbeen
tbeir effectiveness'Two previous
to tbe one at soNGS, so it is impossibleto predict
effectivenessof the lights' however'
$udies provide someindication of the potential
rightedwith
parick and vascotto (1gg1)found twice as many arewifein chanrbers
et al' (1988)rePort that nearly twice as
mercurylighs.as in control chambers.Taft
canal when mercury lights were on as
many salmon were blpassed at wapatox
when the light were off'
Cbaptcr 3
Potentialre&tdiotts in losses
be
SONGS can
A very rougb estimate of the savingsthat might be expectedat
heat treatment
calculated by arbitrarily reducing the presesl imPin$ementand
impinged by Units 2
mortality rates. For example,the amual estimate of biomass
quite small, and may be
and 3 is 72 MT. Most of these frsh (at least 45 MT) are
to mercury ligbts in
unable to svim againstthe intake flow evenif they are atuacted
ligbts' the
of the remainingfish could be savedby merorry
the collestion bay. o
l*
the 3'0 MT of fsh killed
savingswould amountto about 1.4IvfT. At least0.3 MT of
If half of the remaining
during heat treatments eachyear consistof small species.
to about 15 MT'
fisb could be savedby nerorry ligha, the savingswould asrount
on the order of 3
The total savingsfrom installing mercury lights might be roughly
the acnrd increasein
MT. This estimatewould be higher or lower dependingon
this diversion efficiency
diversion efnciency due to the mercury lights, and how
ghangcsfrom speciesto sPecies.
of mercury lighs
Becausesome sttrdieshave indicated greater attradiveness
provide the highesteffestiveness
wben they are cycledon and oB ffi pattern night
off most of the time' and then
at SONGS. In partiorlar, the lights might be turned
Return system'
turned on immediately before operatingthe Fish
TecladcalfeasibilitY
problems with implementing
There seem to be no particglar technical
has somedistinct advantages'The
mercury lights at SONGS;in fact, this technique
in the co[ection bay of the FRs. The
be
would
lights
the
for
location
likely
most
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
Istalc SYstem
of the istake g6telDr so
collection bay is one of the most accessible areas
maintenanceof tbe ligbs would be relatively easf'
Costs
the cost of installing a
Althougb I have not seenany published estimatesof
mercury tigbt system,the costsworrld be relatively small'
realized by using mercury
It seemslikely that considerablesavingscould be
ligbts should be tested at
lights to.guide fish into tbe collection areas. Merorry
that are possible'
SONGSin order to estimatethe reductionin fish losses
3.3.3.2Strobelights
ligbts provide an effective
A number of snrdieshave indicated that suobe
of tbe gilz;afi sbad tested in
behavioral barrier to entrap6enl For example56Vo
an in,.r''ent velocity up to 1.0 fps
tbe raboratory avoided a simulated intake with
ligbt (Patrick 1982a Patrick and
when the intake was illuminarcd with a strobe
tested extensivelyin the freld'
Vascotto 1981). However, strobelights havenot been
california suobe lights in the
and no tests have been performed in soutbern
turbineintakeofadanapparentlyincreaseddiversionofsomesnlmonidsduring
thedayandsteelheadatnighgbutdecreaseddiversionforsomesalmonidsatnight
to haveuo effect the following yeal'
(Haln 1988);furthermore, the suobesappeared
when s8obeswere use4 althougb the
Sockeyesalmon smoltsavoided a da6 intake
than sonic devices(6G7svo')(McKinley
effectivenessof strobes(s6%) was lower
to
strobetight divertedor repened65Vo
snrdy,
fierd
patrick
another
In
lggg).
and
results at Hadley
ggvoof eels at risk (EPRI 1gg4). However, preliminary
Cbapter 3
of sbad
Falls/Holyoke indicate that sirobe lights had no effect on the behavior
under any condition during the test period (Taft et al. L988).
The effectiveness of strobes undoubtedly depends on tbe time of day'
fish' since
nubidity, and speciesconsidered;it may also depend on the size of the
aL 1982)
larger eels were repelled more successfullythan smaller eels (Patrick A
lights
and the intensity and duration of the flash. The effectivenessof strobe
devicessuch
app€rs to be enhancedwhen they are usedin conjunctionwith other
plant
as pneumatic gUrs or air bubblen. Effectivenessat a Hudson River Power
62Vowith
increasedfrom Z3Vofor strobesalone to 56Vowith a pneumaticgun and
by L9Vo
an air curtain; however, all three devicestogetber decreasd effectiveness
(Matouseketa1.1988).Fish apparentlydo not habinrateto the strobe'
conditions'
Becausestrobe light systemshave not been testedunder relevant
The few tests
it is impossible to predict how muctt they migbt reduce entraPment'
of juvenile and
conductedso far suggestthat, at least for somespecies,entraPment
testiog is neede4
adult fish migbt be reduced nrbstantially. However, additional
could ' be
particularly in the Soutbern California areq before this technique
of strobe lights
consideredeffective. These tests should considerthe effeetiveness
well as during the day'
for different speciesand should employ the ligbs at night'as
be attracted to the light
Testing also needsto evaluatethe posibility that fisb would
entraPment rate might
form far away (although a demonstrably lower, overall
lossesin spite of the
indicate that strobe lighs could effectivelymitigate entraPment
attrastiveness;.
l*
I
I
T
T
I
t
t
t
I
t
I
I
I
T
t
t
I
l
t
I*akc SPten
with instalting a
There probably are no serioustechnical problems involved
to be suPPliedto the
strobe system at tbe intakes, although Power would need
intake area.
low' No stnrcturd
Tbe cost of a strobe light rystem would be relatively
There would be some
6erlifigations to tbe existing systemwould be necessary'
the intakes'
ongoingcostsassociatedwith maintaining the lighs near
33.4 Bubble curtains
on the bottom of the
Bubble orrtains consist of a qntem for releasing air
'screed or qrrtain of bubbles near the intake
watel column to create a rising
tried in conuolled tesS and
opening. A wide variety of bubble Patternshavebeen
plants located in
at
in prototlpe installations. Bubble screels havebeen used Power
bubble screensuzually result in
fresbwater or esnrarineenvironments. In general,
(Andrew et aL t955' Bibko er al
lessthan a1yvoreduction in the entrapmentof fish
Hydro (Patrict 1982b)'therewas
LgTl,Zweiacker et aL :f/n).In a snrdyat ontario
were 1l5edunder low-Ievel ligbt
a T[gSVoreduction in entrapment when bubbles
strobe light' the air bubble curtain
conditions. When used in conjunction witb a
under variousn'bidity conditions.
could be as effective method of fish diversion
Bubble$rtainshaveneverbeentriedintbeopenoceanofSouthern
their effectiveness' However' the high
c:,lifornia so it is impossible to predict
conjunction with frequent high currentintake flows at soNGS Unia 2 and3, in
undoubtedlyput seriousconsraints on the
would
motion,
water
wave-induced
and
F-
I
Chapter3
effestive at
effectivenessof this system. Bubble curtains seeln unlikely to be
SONGS.
their cost
Bubble curtains do not Presentany serioustechnical Problems'and
would be relatively low.
33.5 Water Jets
to guidejuvenile salnon in a
Water jet cgrtainshavebeen usedsuccessfully
an intake
test flurDe@ates and VanDerWalder 1969). However,frsh approaching
that a florrr rate
are often respondingto the plant-induced intake flow. It is likety
the behavior of
rougbly equivalent to tbe intake flow would be required to influence
in relatively calm
fish in sucb a sinration Water jets would seemappropriate only
at SONGS'
water with low intake flour rates;they would probably be ineffective
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
t
t
T
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
T
I
T
I
I
t
I
I
J
t
t
I
T
I
I
t
CHAPTER4
DISCHARGE SYSTEM
in use
, 4-L Inss reduction techniquesnow
diffusersin order to
Units 2 z'Ad3were designedto dischargewater through
the California State Thermal
compty with the thermal dischargerequirements of
water mixes rapidly with
Plan. The diffusers.are designed so that discharged
temperature to less than 4'F
entrained water and reduces the maximgm surface
even in the absenceof
above ambient beyond 1000ft from the dischargestrucAlre'
plume surfacetemPera$res are
curTe1ts. With the prevailing longShorecturents'
The cost of designing and
generally 2oF or less above ambient temPeranyes'
to about $76 million for
installing each systemwas about $124million, as compared
a simple singlePort discharge.
dischargewas the thermal
The primary considerationfor the designof the
to ninimize tbe environmental
standard; tbis standardwas presumablyestablisbed
from SONGS' However' the
discharge
the
as
such
discharges
thermal
of
impacts
standar4 also produ@saplume
diff.ser glEteq whictr effectivelymeetsthe thermal
water' and this nfbid plume has
tbat is frequently more nrrbid tban the ambient
of organisms,partianlarly thosein the
direct and indirect adverseeffectson a variety
Reports B, F, J and K)' The potential
(see
Technical
bed
Kelp
onofre
san
discbargehaverevolved around ways
SONGS'
to
due
losses
reducing
for
techniques
plume near SOIL
of reducing or eliminating the trrrbid
i
Cbapter4
(U'S' Atomic
The Final Environmental Statementfor SONGSUnits 2 & 3
s)'stems:(1)
Energi Commission1973c)evaluatedfour typesof altenrativesssling
discharge systen
singte-point discharge, once-through cooling; (2) multi-point
differentials;
(which was adopted); (3) once'throughsysteEswith lower temPeranrre
considersthe
and (a) open- and closed-cycleseawatercooling towers' This chapter
alteruative' while
frrst nro of these alternatives; Chapter 6 considers the third
Chapter 5 considersthe fourth alternative'
at SONGS might
Severalpotential changesto the existingcooling system
a plume over solt
reduce the n[bidity of the plume or avoid having
superior' The more
Unfornrnately, no one alternative stands out as clearly
while the least expensive
expensivealternatives seem to have more certain results,
plume and affect transport of
alternatives might actually increase turbidity in the
flow patterns' Also' most
sand and sediment by affecting local currenS and
the amount of water
modifications to the existing diffuser qFtem involve reducing
standardsif entrainment is
entrained; soNGS Eight exceedthe current thermal
reducedby 50Vo.
Inordertoevaluatefullytheirfeasibility,designchangesneedtobestudied
we present preliminary
in more detail than we can provide. Nevertheless,
evaluationsin this section
42 ModifYbottom toPograPhY
of nfbid bottom water
one possible techniquefor reducingtbe enuainment
wouldbetoplacerocksaroundthediffrrserssotbattheflowofentrainedwateris
I
t
I
t
f
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
Discharg;cSystem
redirected so tbat more
redirected. It is coDcei\tablethat entrainmentflow could be
watel colrrmn and less
water is drawn from the top. and mid-depth regions of the
from the bottom, nrbid region-
fi[bid
problem of entraining
Logistica[y, this would be the easiestsolution to the
or underwater
water because it would not require any plant downtime
could be lowered from a
construction The rocls to modiff tbe bottom topography
darnageto the ports' The
barge, althougb care would bave to be taken to prevent
enhancing the marine
rocks would also act as an artificial reef, potentially
no plant downtime' this
envirorunent (see Chapter 8). Becausethere would be
cost of acquiring and
technique would be relatively inexpensive, altbougb the
placing the rocls would run into severalmillion dollars.
with this technique'
There are two serious technical problerns associarcd
that' in tbe absenceof very
Fi$t the volume of the make-upflow may be so large
entrained in spite of the
strong density-stratificatio& bottom water would be
be needed to ensure that the
modified topography. Hydraulic modelling would
this technique would have
strucEre would modis the flow as e.:rpected.secon4
in the area The line of
unknown effects on the long-sboretransport of sediment
ncatci" sand' increasingdeposition near
rocks used to modify the topographymight
night spill over into the area
tbe rocks. Evennrally, the acclmulating sediments
sediments,tbe height of the Por'ts
near the diffrrser Por6. As the area filled with
acnrauylead to a worseningof the
abovethe bottom would be reduced"whicb courd
of the diffusers bave indicated that
nrrbidity problem. Recent obsenntions
problem with the existing diffuser design' so
a
be
even
may
accumulation
sediment
l
Chapter 4
needsto be viewed
any technique that might increasethe acsumulationof sediments
witb caution
predictions of
This cannot be considered feasible unless accurate
problems
entrafurmentand sedimentation patterns indicate that tbese Potential
techniquedoes
would not be serious. Given tbe qrrrent state of ogr knowledge,this
not seemto be worth consideringfirrtber.
43 ModiS diffuser Ports
Envirsnmental
The original diffgser design presented in tbe 1973 SONGS
port extending3 m
Impact Statementincluded only 30 Ports per diffuser, with each
1973b)' Althorgb
above the bottom and dischargingwater vertically (SCE L973U
by a small margin'
laboratory model studiesindicated that this designwould meet,
rise at 1000ft from
the state tbermal dischargestandards(lessthan 4oFtemPerature
redesignedwith 63 ports'
discharge) in a curent of 0.09 loots, the diffrsers were
at a 2V angle in order to
each raised 2 m off the bottom and dischargrngwater
thermal requirement with no
increase the rate of thermal diftsion and meet the
time, the orieinal design'witb
curenl Although it was not a designcriterion at the
than the clurent design'would
ia vertically oriented discbargeat about 1 m higber
of the tubid bottom water' It
have entrained less water, and in partiorlar, less
on the existing diffgsers' but
would Dot be easy to reduce the number of Ports
tbat would reducetbe n'bidity
modifrcationscould be made to the ports themselves
in the plume.
I
t
t
I
1
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
T
T
I
I
I
t
t
T
I
I
il
I
I
t
I
l
Disclarg;e SYstcm
would probably be to
The most effective modifrcation to reduc ttrrbidity
by replacing the ports'
increasethe beight of the por6. This courdbe accomprished
stnrctures over tbe ports
as disetrssedin t\is section, or by lowering prefabricated
would increasethe
(seenex seetion,Section4.4). Raising the Ports off the bottom
botton' thereby reducing the
distance between the dischargeopening and ocean
amount of turbid bottom water thatwould be enaained'
angle at whicb water is
A secondpotential modification would be to alter tbe
of dischargedwater upward
discharged. If pora were altered to direa the flow
design' the offshore
(instead of upward and offsbore), as in the originat SCE
reducethe enuainmentof
componentof the flow would !e eliminated. This would
up by wave action It would
inshore water, which is more nybid becauseit is stirred
entrains'
also reduce the total amount of water tbe discharge
tbe velocity at which the
Finalln entrainment could be decreasedby reducing
by increasingthe size of
water was discharged. The exit velocity could be decreased
in proportion to the decrease
the port openings. The enUainmentwould be reduced
in exit velocitY.
Thereductioninentrainmentofbottomwatercannotbepreciselycaleulated
(1989) provide tbe follon'ing qualitative
without scale models, but List and Koh
,wben
tbey entrain approaching.
tbe diffrsers are operating in a s'rrent,
analpis:
fluid.FortheoriginalSCEdesignwithverticalports'almostTsVooftheoncoming
that were achrally constnrctedachieve
flow would have been mixed; the diffrsers
full(1007o)rnixing.Becausetheinstalledporaarealmosttffivoeffrcientinmixing
flow, Erbid water near tbe bottom is almost
the discbargedwater with tbe oncoming
t
Cbapter 4
SCE design' the
certainly entrained with tbe discbargedwater. With the origlnal
seafloor' Thus' tbe
25Vo of.tbeflow not mixed isprobably the fraction nearestthe
less turbid bottom
tall vertical dischargePorts of the original designwould enrain
water than the original design"
might be reduced
Althougb List and Koh's analysissuggeststhat enrainment
reduction would come
by EVowith the original scE desiga and that much of this
the nrrbidity in the
from the most nrbid bottom water' it cannot speos how much
of modification of the
plume could be reduced. However, it seemstbat sometype
reducing the turbidity
discbargeports could be consideredcapableof substantially
I
I
T
I
I
I
t
of tbe plume.
]
the surfacewater
Any technique that reducesentrainnent flow will inoease
on the anount that
temperatures. The actgal changein temperaturewill depend
surface temperarures
entrainnent is reduced. With the present difftrser desigR
tbe thermal standards(4oF
1000 ft from the discharge stnrcture are well within
can be tolerated within the
above ambient), so some increase in temperatgre
zubstantially(which is' after
existing standards. However, if entrainment is rcduced
would exceed tbe thermal
all, the goal of modising the diftrser Ports), SONGS
Board atdlot Regional water
standard,and a waiver from the state water control
For this disc'sion of the feasibility ot'
Quality control Board would be required.
that srrch a waiver could be
possible mitigation techniques, I bave assumed
obtained.
scale glsdsling to confrrm the
cost of this option would include hydraulic
the design"fabrication of the uni6,
effectivenessof any modification and frne-t'ne
I
t
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
x
I
I
I
T
t
I
I
I
t
1
t
T
I
il
I
I
t
I
I
Dischargc SYstem
run into hundredsof tbousands
and installation of the units. Scalemodeling would
the oristing Portswould meet
of dollars. It is 'nlikety that a simple modification of
gnit would probably need to be
necessarystnrctural requirements, so eacb port
nozzles' cost
s
replaced witb a new unit. The original Poff, with ahrminum/btonze
assuming a similar cost for
$100,000 each (J. ,sg pasonal comtnanication);
$12 mntion for all
redesignedports, fabrication alone would cost aPProximately
removing tbe existing poru
ports on both diffusers. Installation would involve
and replacing them with
(whicb have been c€ment-keyedto the diffrser conduit)
of a saddle tbat fits over
modified units. Tbe existingPorts have a base consisting
the ports would involve excavating
openingsin the main dischargePiPe. Replacing
(an expersiveand difficult procedure'
arognd the existingPorts, removing the por6
and Kob 1989)' placing the new
with a risk of damagingthe diffuser conduit; List
ports were originally installed)'
porrs over the pipe (usrngthe methodwith whicb ttre
costswould probably be in the
and backfrlling around the new Ports. constnrction
(1989) estimate constnrction costs of
range of millions of dollars. List and Koh
the potential danage to the difftrser
more than $25-30million per unit, but note tbat
These operations could begtn
complications'
construction
cagse
could
conduit
additional costsfrom plant
ninirnizing
outage'
plant
scheduled
dgring a regularly
take longer than tbe plant is routinely
doumtime, but tbe entire operation nigbt
offline,inwhichcaseadditional.costsfromdifferentialfuelcostswouldbeincurred.
4.4 Place stnrctures over diffuser
ports
CoveringthedischargePortswithrocksorotherstnrgrrralunitsnight
way
plume' This techniquewouldmodi$ the
discbarge
the
of
nrbidity
the
reduce
Chaptcr 4
that water is eutrained,but would not require costlyport fabrication and underwater
coDstnrction.
4.4.1 Rocls
One way to alter entrainmentwould be to cover the diftrser Portswith rocls.
The rocls would reduce fts sa6ainment of ambient seawaterby reducing the
momentum of the dischargebefore it mixes with &e ambient water- The warrt
dischargewater would rise directly to the surfacefrom the reef due to buoyancy.All
of the offshorecomponentof &e momentumwouldbe blocked,and thus the plume
causesof
would no longer tend to flow offshore,eliminatingthe inshore-to-offshore
the nrrbidity. I-esswater would be entrained becausethe velocity of the discharged
water would be lower. The anount and source of entrained water is difficult to
predict acarrately without scale modeling, but it seemslikely that there would be
less of the nrbid bottom water entrained. The temperatureof surfacewater would
also changewitb changesin entrainment flow, and tbe modified diffuser might not
meet the requirementsof the current Thermal Plan
The implementation of this techniqueis conceptuallysimple: rocls would be
practice' it is
carefully laid over the porc until &ey completelycoveredthe ports' In
might
dif6cglt to handle the large rocls that would be used, &d their positioning
damagetbe dischargePortsthree
In addition to the difEarlties of carefully placing the rocls, there are
steyns
technical obstaclesto implementing this technique. The most seriousobstacle
over the Ports'
from the increasedbackpressurethat would result from piling rocks
t
t
I
!
I
t
I
t
t
t
t
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
t
t
T
t
t
I
I
Discharge SPtem
dischargesystem'
Tbe present pumPingsJ6temis nrned to the head required by the
Larger PumPs
Placing rocks over tbe ports would greatlyincreasethe head needed'
system
would be required to achievea greater head,but the designof the discharge
the pumps'
limits the amount of increasetbat would be possible. Simply replacing
the cost of
which in itself would be expensive(severalmillion dollars Per PuEP,Ph$
The designof the
downtime and the higher pumping costs),would not be enougb'
and
hydraulic sJ6teq including the elevations and dimensionsof the condensers
(i'e" bead)
seal well weir (seeAppendix A), is gearedspecifrcallyfor the Pres$ue
it into tbe ocean'
neededto move tbe water through the condensersand discharge
in order to
so the entire system would probably have to be re-engineered
accotrrmodatethe increasedbackpressure.
effluent water'
The second obstacle involves the potential recirculation of
and less initial
Since the discbarge plume would bave no offshore momennlm
water might
dilution, soNGS' efluent might accumulatelocally and tbe discharged
increasingin
recireulate through the cooling rysteq with the dischargetemPeranrre
(1974) dissussthis
proportion to the Percentageof reciretrlatbg water' Koh a aI'
problem for the Unit 1 discharge.
rocks over the diffusers
Finally, it is possiblethat the reef area causedby the
Tbe outward flow of tbe
would increasetbe deposition of sandnear the diffgsen'
on the reef' but other
discharges should keep ligbter sediments from settling
Since tbe reef would be
mecbanisms might lead to increased deposition'
transPort' it nigbt intercept sand'
perpendiarlar to the normal longshoresediment
If a low-pressurearea develops
which would then aclumulate around the reef'
zone could form a sandbar
behind the rocls, sandthat settlesinto the low-pressure
Chapter 4
cause less
reported to the CCC that a 5ingls'peint discharge would probably
chrnging
environmental damagethan the diffirser s:Etem(l"fRC 1980)' Therefore'
reduce the
the diffuser systens into single-point or triple-point dischargesmight
resourcelossescausedbY SONGS.
wa)'s'
The diffrsers could be changed into 5ingle-point dischargesin wo
all of the cooling
First, the discharges,6temcould be changedin place' Essentially'
sealed
water could be allowed to escapefrom the end of the diffgsers and the PorE
farther offshore
off. Second,the dischargecould be movedto a new location,either
Section4'6'
or up or downcoast;this alternativeis consideredin the next section'
discharge
There are advantagesand disadvantagesto modi$ing the existing
lessen the impact of
system into a single-point discharge. This change would
would be less
soNcs' dischargebecausetbe plume from a single'point discbarge
area than the plume
tufbid (it would enUzin lesswater) and would cover a smaller
maoy, including the fast
from the diffirser. unfornrnately, the disadvantagesare
night be continuing
that the discbarge will still be close to SOK and so tbere
througb the
impacts to tbe reef from the plgme; sestonflru (mwcmens of particles
a problem with recirculation
area) night still be higher than normal; there might be
at.197$; changesin diameter
of plnme water into the intakes(SectionA5 in l(oh et
large Pressurehead loss if all the
of the existing difftrser piping would imposea very
reverseflow capabilities would be
cooling water were to be pumped offshore; and
intake lines impossible (List and
severely reduced, naking beat ueatment of the
Koh1989).Discbargingfromtheendofthediffuserswouldrequireatthe
and pumps' and might not be
minimum the replacement of both PumP motors
cooling q/stem becauseof design
possible without complete re-engineeringof the
T
l
t
I
I
l'
I
t
I'
T
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
72
r
t
I
t
I
DischargeSFtcs
tlpes
the same
In general,placing strucftral units over the diffgsen would provide
of
of reductionsas rocks,but with fewer disadvantages.The acnrd installation
tbe sea floor
the uniE would be fairly simple. Some preparation of tbe surface of
would
around the diffirser Ports would be necessary,but tbe astud installation
t
basicallyinvolve carefully placing the uni6 over the Ports.
I
I
ovel the
Although sogre of the problems associatedwitb placing rocks
uniu, severe
diffrser ports would be ameliorated by using prefabricated strucnrd
problerns would remain As witb rocks, the most seriousproblem is the insreased
t
(The strusturd units
backpreszurethat would be added to the diffgser qEteIL
inner sides
would g:tgsebackpressurebecausethe dischargedwater would strike the
t
I
t
I
t
t
I
I
I
l
t
The added
of the units rather than being dischargedfreely into tbe ocean')
would probably be great enougbthat larger PumPswould be required
baclcpreszure
recirctrlation of
and/or the cirsglation systeEwould need to be re'engineered' The
The possible
plgure water would be about the samefor stnrctrual units as for rocks'
less severe
problem of increasedsedimentationnear the difftrsen would be much
stability, a stnrctural
tban for rocks; even with the broad baseneededfor structural
a
'nit would have a snrallerfootprint than a pile of rocls covering Port
4.5Changetosingle.pointortriple.pointdischarge
Tbeinitialdesigncrircriaforthedischarges}6teEsforUnits2znd3focrrsed
of tbe dischargeplume'
on meetingtbe thermalstandardsratberthan the nfbidity
environmentaleffectsof the
However,tbe MRCS studieshaveindicatedtbat the
effect on &e marinebiota
warm-waterdiscbargeare likely to havelittle adverse
In facL the MRC has already
comparedto the effectsof nfbidity in the plume'
-
operationwith reversedflow (Ust and Koh 1989).
I
I
I
to
Althougb r€placing the difhser Ports witb three dischargePorts appears
It would be
be technicatly feasible, tbe offshore constructionwould be significanr
neq
relatively simple to btock off tbe untrecessarydiffgser Por6; however,installing
large ports would require excavationof the existing diffuser conduil consmrctiDg
t
I
t-
Cbapter 4
high to allow normal
serious lirnitation; however, the AT would probably be too
diffirser
new dischargeopenings,and attachingthe large Por6-three times for eacb
on both
line. List and Koh (1989)estimatethe cost of constructingthree large Ports
diffusersto be $3C40 million, ptus any costsfor down time during construction
4.6 Relocatedischarge
of the
RelocatingsoNGS' dischargewould eliminate the adverseeffect
the kelp bed'
dischargeon SOK becausethe plume would no longerimpingeon
downcoast'
The discbargecouldbe movedin four differentways:inshore,uPcoast'
would incorporatea
and offshore. In all cases'it is likely that the new discbarge
waiverof the thermal
single-pointdischargerather than a difhrsersysteq sincca
of the dischargedesign'and a
standardswould be neededin mostcasesregardless
singte-pointsystenis simplerandlesse'xpensive'
Althougbmovingthedischargewouldeliminatethenrrbidplrrmeoverthe
impactsto the be4 SONGS
SanOnofreKelp Bed (SOK),sd thereforeanyfutgre
as sedimentscoveringthe
has already impacted SOK Residual effests,nrch
dischargewas moved' It is not
cobbles,night persistfor sometime evenif the
I
t
r
t
I
T
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
t
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
Discharge Systcn
This doesnot aPPear
pressurelimitations.on the condensers(List and Koh 1989)'
to be a viable alternativewith three large
However, it would be feasibleto replacetbe 63 diffuser Ports
were 5imil31in structrrrd
dischargePorts (List and Koh 1989). If tbeselarge Ports
m in diameter and would
design to the Unit 1 discharge,they would be about 3
and Koh (1989)propose
dischargecooringwater 5 to 6 m abovethe seafloor. List
pipe sizesin the diffusers
that they could be placed at the end of eacb of the three
they would entrain a
(see Appendix A). If thesePorts dischargedwatel veftically,
system' (If the ports are
smaller total volume of water than the Present diffuser
volume as the Present
angled up from the horizontal, they could entrain a similar
As with other techniquesfor
diffusers and meet the state thermal requiremens.)
entrainment and thermal
reducing entrainment, there is a trade-off betweenlower
dischargestandards
of
a careful assessment
Erraluatingtbe triple'point discbargeoption requires
to determine the hydraulic head
the cooling water q6tem hydraulics in order
the potentiar for recirc'ration of
available to drive the modification, enaruate
is s'fEcient flow a'ailable to drive
dischargewater, and determine whether there
treatments' List and Kob (1989)
tbe sptem in reverse f,ow mode during heat
possible co$equences of
conducted a hydraulic analpis evaluatingthe
modiffing
thediftrsergeometry.Thisanalysisindicatedtbat(1)thetotalheadrequiredfor
but not enorrgh to be of siggificant
norrral operation would be slightly higher,
would be coruiderably lower than with
concern, and (2) the reverse flow capacity
AT acrossthe condensers'Sincethe higher
the existingsyster\ rezulting in a higher
flow, which occur rarely' this is not a
AT would only aPPlyto periods of reverse
C}.agter 4
locating the
As mentioned above, there is a problem associated with
'througb the
discharge close to the intakes becausethe plgme could recirsulate
from the Unit
intakes. Koh er at. ([g!4)harre discussedthe problem of recirsulation
of water' the
1 discharge. BecauseUnits 7 atd3 dischargea much gfeater volume
possibility from
recirculation problem would be serious enough to eliminate this
I
I
I
t
I
consideration.
j
of dollars' Costs
Costs would probably be in the range of tens of millions
is scheduledfor
would be minimized if constnrctionwas performed when the plant
t
be needed'
refueling and maintenance,althoughadditionaldowntime might
l[
,|
4.62 Move uPcoastor downcoast
moved awayfrom
To avoid the recireulation problem' the dischargecould be
closeto SONGS' the
the intakes, either uPcoastor donacoasL As with a discharge
beach'
dischargecould take place in shallowwater or acrossthe
would cause some new
Moving tbe discharge upcoast or downcoast
would probabty stem from the
environment imFacts. The prinary impact
imPastwould be similar to the
constnrction of new pipeline to.the disctrarge' This
If the pipeline ran along the
impact of the original constnrction of the difftsers
this is already a bighly disnrrbed
shore, tbe beach habitat would be disn'bed; sinc-e
alvay or deposited over a very
habitat (atl of the beach sedimeng can be eroded
likely be a temporary perturbation
short period of time), constructionwould most
construction' however') If
(It would compromisepublic accessto tbe beach dgring
would be destroyed and tgrbidity
the pipeline was zubtidal, soft$ottom habitat
I
I
t
I
il
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
tp
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
Dischargc' Systcm
possibleto estimatethe intensity or duration of theseresidual effects,but until they
disappeareda net loss of resourceswould persistthat shouldbe mitigated'
4.6.1 Move inshore
it
The problem with SONGS'plumeis not so much how nrrbid it is aswhere
occurs. High nrbidity is the norm closeto shoreand closeto the bottom. SONGS'
however,movesnrbid.water offshore and up into the water column over SOK One
solutionto the nybidity problemwould be to haveSONGSdischargecloseto shore'
near the surf zone,where the water is alreadynrrbid'
a
The discharge could have nvo confrgurations. The discharge could be
to
single-point underwater discharge,much like the dischargefor Unit 1 but closer
like the
shore. Alternatively, SONGS eould dischargewater across the beach,
water tbat
discbargeat Diablo canyon .In either case,the efluent would Eix with
spatial
was already nybid, so SONGS' dischargewould have little influence on the
would not be
distribution of nsbidity in tbe area; in partiarlar, ngbidity bver SOK
t
higber than normal
I
I
environmental
Moving the dischargecloser to shorewould causesome new
likely be substantial
impacts. U the dischargewas across[he beacb tbere would
and utilized the
erosion of the beach sedimenB. If the dischargewas subtidal
impacts (from
existing pipeline, there would be some temPorary construction
impacts would be
nrrbidity and constnretion barges), but the environnental
due to the discharge'
minimar. Although the water temperahrrewourd be elevated
it seernsunlikely that it would baveany important effects.
I
I
I
t
t
Cbapter 4
constnrction'
constnrctioncostswould be lower. If SONGShad to be offline during
costswould be higber
4.63 Move offshore
could
Kelp bed
Relocating tbe difhrsersso that they extendbeyond the san onofre
The discharge
eliminate tbe adverse effects of SONGS on the kelp bed'
over the kelp
would need to be moved far enoughthat the plume no longer spread
depth is 30 m' The
bed, perhaps as far as 15 km farther offsbore,where the water
likely' a single-point
dischargecould then be fitted with either a diffuser or' more
construction' sincethe
discharge. This oPtion would require signifrcantunderwater
also have to be buried
dischargeline is buried in sand and the qrtended line would
for proper anchoring.
impacts'
Extending the discharge would cause additional environmental
habitaf Enrichment of
Constnrction would destroy a limited area of soft-bottom
would be expectedfrom the
the benthic biota (infaunat organismsand bottom fish)
existingsystem;if a single'point
extendeddischarge,sincethis hasocc'rred with tbe
'enrichmenf might be more concentratedthan with the
discharge was use4 tbe
different impact (for
present diffuser s!6tem, possible cauing a qualitatively
around tbe discharge)' These
exanple, different speciesmight inyade the area
the region around tbe discharge'
lTpacb would be exPectedto be restrieted to
dischargestemmingfrorr the use of a
Qfuzngesin the therrral characteristicsof the
untikely to cause any substantial
single-point discharge in deeper water seem
impacts.
I
I
I
I
l
t
I
T
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
I
I
t
rl
Discbarge SYstem
'r
I
.;
t
I
t
I
.I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
water was discbarged
would be increasedduring constnrction. U SONGS' cooling
of the beach sediments'
acrossthe beacb, there would.tikely be substastialerosion
from the dischargewould
If the discbargewas subtidal" any increased nybidity
area it seemsunlikely
probabty bave minimal effects. In the high'energ inshore
in any case'based on the
that the disc.hargewould causeincreasedsedimentation;
the discbargeare more likely
MRCs data on soft bentbosand bottom fish, effectsof
likely that any increasein water
to be positive than negative. Simitarly, it seems
discbargingthe heated water
temperange would bave negtigble effests. However,
thermalstandards'
closeto shorewould definitelyrequire a waiverof the
witb this technique'
There are no.major technical problems associated
require layrng pipe to the new
Moving the dischargeaway from the plant would
procedure' The distancethat could
discharge arc\which would be a fairly routine
on the headmadeavailableby not
be reachedwithout changingthe pumpsdepends
the difftrserPorts' with a singlemoving tbe water severalkm offshoreand througb
750 m longer aod stili
point discharge,the discbargepipe could be approximately
Thus, the dischargefor
have the samehead toss (J. lst pasorul communicdion).
plant
upcoast or downcoastfrom the
soNGS could be located as far as 35 km
of Unit 2 discharge'750 m-long
(present configuration of 19?5m to tbe beginning
using a single-point discharge) without
diffuser, plus extra 750 m gained by
pumPs;this would include tbe coastlinefrom
existing
the
to
modifications
significant
uP to SanMateo Creek'
oppositethe weigh station south of SONGS
CostofmovingsoNcs,discharge3.5kmfromplantwouldbeatleast$70
J. Ust' penona! communication),and
pipeline;
of
$2000/ft
on
(based
million
the
if the dischargewas closerto soNGS'
course,
of
more.
considerably
probably
t
Cbapter 4
while the new
communication). If SONGS could not oPerate for six months
(1980)'tbe
dischargewas being tied into the existi'g q6teq as suggestedby Ebert
overall cost of
replacement fuel costs would be at least $96 million- Thus, the
extendingthe diffusers 1 km migbt be rougbly $200million'
I
I
I
I
I
t'
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
CIIAPTER5
REPI,ACEMENToFHilSTINGcooLINGSYSTEM
coolingsystem
The most radical approacbto reducingthe effectsof soNGS'
a closed'cycle system'
would be to replace the open-cycle cooling qystemwith
plants using river
Closed-cyclecooling systemsare now required on inland Poriler
thermal load on aquatic
water for cooling becauseof the adverse effests of the
less important for power
communities in rivers. Although therrral effects are far
would still reducethe
plants locatedon the oPencoast'closed-cyclecoolingsysterns
systems
intake and dischargeeffectsof an open-cyclesystem. crosed-cycle'cooling
of coolingtowers'
include cooling pondsand canalsand many differeut t)?es
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
5.L CoolingTowers
from the once-througb
The substantial environmental impacs resulting
by reducing
geeling systemused at soNGS could be greatly reducedor eliminated
towers have been successfully
the quantity of water used for cooling. Cooling
or in situationswhere the
employed in caseswhere abundantwater is unavailable'
are unaccePtable' Because
environmental effects of once-throughcooling systems
lessof tbe volume of water usedby the
cooling totfrersat SONGSwould use L}Voor
Regulatory Commission1979)' there
once-throughcooling qntem(U.S. Nuclear
losses,and the dischargelosses
would be a proportionate decreasein the intake
measuredbytbeMRcwouldbeeliminatedsincetherewouldnolongerbeanrrbid
pIume.
F
Chapter 5
to tbe atmosphere' Tbe hot
Qssling towersUaqsferthe wasteheat directly
as it drops iown the heigbt of tbe
water is pumped to tbe toP of the tower and cools
tbe condensers' cooling air enters
tower; the cooled water is recirqilated through
are manytyPesef gesling towers
There
top.
tbe
at
oria
and
bottom
the
at
the tower
tbatlJsedifferentmethodstodropwaterdownthetowerandpumpairupthetower.
below' with their advantagesand
The basic t)?es of cooling to\ilers are discussed
disadvantagessummarizedin Table 5-1'
come into direct contast' The
never
water
and
air
tov/ers'
cooling
In dry
by
tubes' and heat is transferred
water is dropped through ao aray of thin
lost
takes place' since water is not
evaPoration
no
ody;
convection
and
conduction
toevaPoration,drytowersrequireverylittleadditionalwateroncetheybegn
they are expensiveand do
However'
water'
fresh
use
therefore,
can,
operating and
Reduced heat transfer will increase
not uansfer heat as effectively as wet to$rers.
5 to
can be expectedto decreaseby
the tgrbine back Pressure'and plant capacity
casein a
design (which would not be the
nrrbine
optimized
an
wi&
lcVo,eveD
(not
The enersf cost for a planned
soNGS)'
at
as
such
reuofit operation
sote than the cost oJ a once?'\vo
about
is
s!$em
cooling
retrofitted) dry tower
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
throughggglingsystemduetoincreasedconsmrctioDcostsanddecreasedcapacity.
DrytowersarenowrsedinEuropeandAfricainonlysqall(<200}vf\il)fossilfuel
at a
winter' They have never been used
in
loads
peak
with
climates
plants in cool
Po\rer station larger
than 200lvf\il'
to drip throughthe open air'
water
cooling
the
allow
wet cooling towers
type of
but alsoby conduction' some
evaporation'
by
primarily
heat
transferring
waterdroples' Drift eliminators
the
slow
to
used
is
gravel
as
porousmaterialsuch
:
Replacement of e*istiag cooling
I
I
Table $1
options.
summary of advantages and disadvantages of closed<lcle cooling
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
MgI}IODS
ADVA}IIAGES
DISADVAI\ITACES
a
Cost*
(MrLuoNs)
requires-zffi acres/uait
land
unarzilable
inexpcnsira,rcquiresless
land than coolingPonds
requires- 100acrcs/unit;
salt ddft
land
unavailable
Dry towers
opcratewith little makeuP
water,so canrse frcshwater;
uo evaporatioqso
uo foggingor drift
techaologthasuot been
demoostratedon this scale;
expcnsive,oPeratiagcostuP8Vo;
Notsy
5m
Mechanical draft
wet towers
rclativulysnall, so lessvis.imPact;
cancontrol cxit temPcrature;
most cfficieot and
leastarpemivetorcr
largevolumeof makcuPwateE
rcquircsfan Power,aoiq6
salt drift and
grouad-lcralfoggingProblems
n0
Natural &aft
wet towers
quict (no fan poler);
rcduccdfoggisgatd
&ift problcmsduc to heigbt
targcvolumcof makcuPwatcri
wry largc (500't8ll) and uncightl$
salt drift
4m
rcduccdwater rcquirencB6;
efrrciencysasg asset towe6;
rcduccdfoggingand drift
technologthas not bccn
deoonstratcd 93 this scalsl
sill rcquires salt watcr;
high ssst
450
Wct/dry tou,crs
CoolingPonds/
Casals
if land is
ine.:rpcnsive
arnilable
SprayPonds/
Canals
. c.sr is for consmrcion and tic-in ooly (1988 rtollnn). Docs oot includc plirnt dqntimc
eod Fduccd Plsnt crFcity'
=
Cbapter 5
water droplets being
are added at the top of the tower to catch 'nevaPorated
wet cooling towers are used:
carried up with the exiting air. Two tlpes of
towers use fans to force the
mechanical draft and nan'al draft. Mechanical draft
reducedif additional power is
air through the towers. The size of the tower can be
the most gemmonlyused tlpe of
usedto drive the fans. Mechanical draft to\ilers are
towers compared to natud
cssling to\iler. The advantagesof mechanical draft
flexibility becausethere is more
draft towers includs lower capital costs;greater
which reducesthe visual impact"
control over watef temPeran*e; and a smaller size,
for ground level fogging and drift'
Their main disadvantageis an increasedpotential
in shape'which is the optimal sbape
Natural draft towers are large and hlperbolic
of naoral draft towers are that
for nafirral convection flow. The disadv:rntages
large towers (-500 ft) and visible
construcrion costs are a littte higher and the
used' they are quieter and cost
not
are
fans
since
However,
unsightly.
are
plume
(if
ground level fogging and salt drift
reduce
towers
the
big5
Also,
less to operate.
I
I
I
t
I
I
seatffateris usedfor cooling)'
have to use seawaterbecausethe
All wet cooling to\ilers at soNGS would
water supplies (u's' Atomic Energt
water requiremenE would exceed fresb
have been used only rareln and they
Conmission 19?3c). Saltwater cooling towers
be 10 to
as SONGS' cos6 are estimatedto
bave uever been used at a plant as large
tower' but cost ovemrns seemlikely
freshwater
egtrivalent
an
for
than
bigber
20vo
in the tower water would
concentration
salt
high
A
tecbnorogt.
given the unproven
increasing
tower, decreasingplant polr'er by
reduce the effrciencyof a wet cooling
Ecodyne, lrlc-, penonal communicuion
(J.
Gianrbastiani,
pressure
back
nrrbine
1e88).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Replaccoent of existing cooliag systcn
feanrres of
Wet/dry mechanical draft to\rrersattemPt to combine the best
economicalcooling
botb wet and dry sssling towers (e.g.,lower water use and more
in a dry tower and
in the zummer). Heated water is frrst passedtbrougb tubes as
This allows tbe
then allowed to drip througb an oPengravel bed as in a wet tower'
is much
water temPeranse to droP as low as it doesin a wet to\iler, but evaporation
use fresbwater in
Iower than in a wet to\Per. Evaporation is still far too great to
200 MW rangehave
SouthernCalifornia, hourever.Only a few Po\ilerstationsin the
equivalent to a wet
used wetfdry towers. Thermal performanceis elgected to be
tAVohigher.
tower,but the costof the more complicateddesignis usuallyabout
number of reasons'
Cooling towers decreasethe efsciency of the plant for a
the water to
including (Reynolds1980): (1) Entra Porveris required for Pumping
becausethe water
the tower, which in the case of soNGS could be substantial
for fans in the caseof
would bave to travel 1 mile and uphill. (2) Enerry is required
Cooling towers cause higher turbine back
greater temPeranre of recirculated cooling tower
mechanical draft towers' And (3)
pressures. This is causedby the
Webster Engineering Corp
water compared to a once-throughqysteul Stone and
plant would be more than
(1978) showedtbat energt loss for retrofrtting a nuclear
for the Indian Point plant
4Vo, andcaPacityloss would be about SVo. The EIS
a 9Vo rcdvCrion in peal
predicted a 4Vo decreasein annual plant caPacityand
generatingcapacity.
5.1.1 PotentialReductionof Losses
the tlpe of tower employed'
The degreeof lossredustionwould dependuPon
eliminatingthe intake and discharge
Dry coolingto\ilerswould usefreshwatbr,thus
t
Chapter5
watertaken
losses.Wet coolingtowerswould gfeatlyreducethe anounJof ocean
tbat a hlpothetical
andretnrnedto the ocean: parkhurstandMchitr (1978)rePort
per secondfor once1000lvf\il nuclearpower plant withdraws2152a$ic feet
of the once-througb
tbrougbcoolingcomparedto 43 cubicfeet per second,or ZVo
and 3
with coolingtowers. (Note: Each of SONGSunia 2
flow, for closed-cycle
achrallywitbdraws1&40cubicfeetper second')
towen' The
The reductionin waterutilized is aboutthe samefor reuofrtted
a once-tbrougbcooling
PalisadesNuclearPowerPlant, originallyoperatedwitb
with mechanicaldraft
systemusing water from Lake Michigaq was retrofrtted
of water from Lake
cooling tov/ersin 19?4. This changedecreasedthe intake
tbat at heast95Vofewer
Michiganby 85Vo.A snrdyof the impacton frsh revealed
there was also a
fisb were impinged after the cooling towe$ were installed;
that were impinged
reductionin the total weight and the numberof fish species
EIS (u.s. NuclearRegulatorycomrnission
@endaet aL 1975). The IndianPoint
would be lessthan4Voof
19?9)predictedthat the water rsed with coolingtouters
and impingementwould be
that used for once-tbroughcooling and entrzdnment
I
I
l'
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
reduc€dbYa similaramounl
I
TheEls.forSoNGsUnits2znd3predictstbatgTvofewerfishwouldbe I
once-througbqystem(u.s' Atomic
killed if coolingtowerswere usedinsteadof a
I
plume would probablybe
trrbid
tbe
to
due
losses
lg?3c);
Enerry Commission
completelyeliminated.$imilarly,theElsforsoNGsunitlpredictedthatintake I
if mechanicaldraft coolingtowers
volumewourdbe reducedtoZ-3voofpresentflow
I
wereused,essentiallyeliminatingentrainmentofmarinelife(U'S"AtomicEnergl
1973b)'
Comsrission
I
I
I'r
Repliaceneat of cxisting cooling s)Eten
5.12 AssoeiatedImPacts
I
t
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
the
reduce
Atthougb the installation of sssling towersat SONGSwould greatly
lossesmeasuredby the MRC that are causedby the once-throughcooling
These associatedimPactswill
rysteq cooling towers would produce new impacts.
of cloud
be discussedin six categories: DrifL blowdown disposal, possibility
formation and fogging,ait quality, noise,and aestbetics'
5.1.2.1Drift
Cooling
Tbe water used in cooliqg towers containsa variety of solutes.
the sals
towers at SONGS would circulate sea water, so tbe water would contain
corrosio&
presentin seawater plus any additivesusedto confol scaleformation,
the elements
sedimentation,and fouling in the tower (Birchall L979).Table 5-2lists
through the wet
commonly associatedwitb cooling to\rrers. As this water circulates
During glp goeling
cooling towers, evaporationconcentratessalt and other solutes'
These
process,some of the water forms small droplets,termed drift or carryover'
fall to the gfound'
droplets escapefrom tbe tower witb the air sUeamand eventually
potentid for danage due
Becausethe drift containssalt and other solutes,there is
water'
to the deposition of thesematerialson vegetation'soils,and
TheSoNGsEIS(U.S.AtomicEnerglCommissionlgT3c)predictedthat
would escapeas drift' and
o.Itvoof tbe circulation of mechanicaldraft towersflow
gAVoof the drift would be
that 4500 lb/hr of salt would be depositedon land'
depositedwithina3-mileradiusofthetowers.TheSoNGsElspredictedthatthe
and 1,089lb/acre'mo' (0'05to
depositionrate would be between1815 lb/acre-mo.
soNGS depositionrate is
03lb/ftz-yr are tbe figuresin the EIS). The predicted
F
I
I
I
I
I
I
Cbapter5
Table $2
cooling tower operations
Toxicity and concentration factors of elements used in
Po*tr
Fron Flnsl Enviroomcutal Statemcnf Sborcbrm Nuclcar
Encrgr Commission,1972(Aft€r Etchholz19tS)'
Eernart
Colccnttrtion Frctorr
Plutton
Brown Algr
S
6-6
Brc
2.8
oc
l
r?,'q)
6100
cuc
l?,000
s2o
l-:
AsH3
toric to ptants;slighttYto mammals
Modcratcly
elgac'
tftllf;;|.tgrtr.en
N
lg,(xto
?J00
Pc
pbc
ts0(X)
4l,.n)0
lo.oo0
?0,0m
E*cnridro8nors.nbmt uffJo:Hi:,1,.#il?1"#.Li.t *cd Plents;
'\'. 3'4
sic
2900
I
I
",:l,3i"."r"ffirrrdo-";1'jgnru*,,i:.Jl#it1gg,?,i"lirn'rroxictoorganismsandis
hishlvsoto invcrtcbrat*;
92
?src
I'
'ndg'ccn
Pbnts;
rofungi
^nililu['r"*"#il,T ffii:Hls;vcrvroxic
2s0
Hsc
Snc
h
Environncnrel ToxicityD (not inFcted)
Funclianr
to organisms
,ffiXl?,J..1"??"T.."r0, Br2isvcrvtoxic;Br'is rclativclvhermless
clz, clo', clor'erc highlvtoxic
cl'is rctativclvharmlcss;
0.052 tffi5l,:T&Tr"o
crc
sc
Phnq US' Atomic
Brnti.t,ls
structur.l
vitel in m.ny ways
None
cumulative
vcry toxic ro mort plenrs,modcratclyro to mrmmels;
f*n
Ersrri.l ro,omcpr.n.
taffilr#l;:?;$#::;3.un.
Nonc
Er*ntierror[orsrninns
I
planktonand firh
Rclativclyharmlecs;conccntntionshighcrin
I
'
'li;;*iU;f;1,,m;g*'P''t$:T'''x*ff$:13'
t
uscdbv
rungharmfur'
in mammalian
vcry toxic to Plantssld grecnalgee
,
c by phnr roors
todctomunrnels;uptek
""$ffgHH[or,*.;i*litt
_I
I
I
modcnrcdzcd orylntsms-s&' tunr'
cActixntrbtor rgccicsorgeFn known.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
l
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
Replacement of cxising cmling s:lstcur
from the seashore:
higber than nanrral deposition rates found severalmiles inland
rangng from 2'6
Talbot (Lg4g) cites a snrdywhere background deposition values
However' tbe
lb/acre-mo to 31 lb/acre-mo were neasured several ln inland'
near the surf zone:
predicted SONGSrate is lower than the salt sedimentationrates
failing near tbe
Moser (1975) measureddeposition rates of about 900 lb/acre-mo
surf zone,dropPrngto les tbat 250lb/acte-mo300m inland'
to 0'001voof'
For nanrral draft towers,the amount of drift would be reduced
indicatesthat the drift
the circulationflow, or 450Ib/hr depositedon land. The EIS
Mateo Valley' If the
might impact an agriarlnyal area nro miles away in San
detrimental impact on
to\ilers were located near the State Parb they could have a
on the spatialpattern of
tbe vegetationthere. The soNGS EIS doesnot comment
the salt tolerances of the
the deposition, or seasonaleffects. It does not disctlss
on native vegetation'
native plaint speciesor the Potential effects of salt deposition
from the plant" it does
Although the EIS mentions a tnrck farming business2 miles
not cornnent on the ambient
not mention likely impactson the croPs.The EIS does
to the ambient level' The EIS
salt levels or how much the tower would add relative
commonin the are4 but it does
statesthat 7 to 8 monthswithout precipitation are
be gfeater where precipitation is
Dot discussthe fact that the impact of salt might
from vegetation' It does not
not frequent enough to remove salt acstrmulation
important fastor in assessingthe
comment on the relative humidity in the arc4an
et aL L977)'
degreeof damagedue to drift (Moser L9?S,McCune
Snrdiesinvolvingapplicationsofsalineaerosolssimilartocoolingtowerdrift
ontofoliagehavedemonstratedthatsolutesareabsorbed(MulchiandArmbruster
1975,1981,1983,Moser:tgls,McC\rneetaLtgTT,FrancisandorrtisTg7g'Taylor
f
Chaptcr 5
|987). |-arge
1983,ArmbrusterandMulchi 1984,Hofrranrret aL
et.aL Lg75,1980,
necrosis'lesions'stunted
enougbquantitiesof salt can be injruiors plants,causing
depends
reproductiveoutPul The enent of the darnage
growth,and/or decreased
meteorologicalconditions'
on manyfastors,suchasageandqpeciesof the plant and
that the salt is far more
For orample,simulationsof salt drift havedemonstrated
(<60voRH) (Moser
harmfulat higbh'midities (>g}voRII) thanat low bumidities
in timesof low precipitation'
lgls,McCune 4 aL Lgn) esPecially
cooling towersis often
A literan'e review revealedthat vegetationnear
onlyfoundcloseto the towers;
damagedby salt drifq but acutenegativeimpac6are
towersare not known(Talbot
the chroniceffectsof long-termoperationof cooling
towerscirculatebrackish
tg{g). A freld snrdyat Chalk Point, Md., where cooling
the towersfor nro yearsprior
&om
km
9.6
and
1.6,4.8,
sites
at
was
conducted
water,
towers' No negativeeffectswere
to operationand5 yearsfollowingoperationof the
the closestagriculnrralareq
determinedon tobaccogrolltn1.6km from the towers,
andArmbnster 1982"1983)' In a
or at anyof the more distantsnrdysites(Mulchi
drift did not aPPearto harm native
satt
the
FL
Point,
Turkey
at
study
short-term
(215n) sitewereinjured;plam
vegetatioD.only the c{ltivatedplans at the closest
towers)werenot affected(Hindawiet
at the other sites(430E to 32 km from the
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t'
I
I
I
t
T
I
Rochow(1978)obsenledhighdepositionratesofsulfatearrdcalciumwithin
towersin Michigan
g2 mof the palisadesNuclearptant mechanicaldraft cooling
I
vegetation'
the
to
with extensivedamage
(which'ses water from l:ke Michigan)
I
Therewasno commentaboutvegetation
trees'
of
defoliation
complete
including
is usedin the oak Ridge Gaseous
chromium
Hexavalent
towers.
the
farther from
I
I
aL L916).
l-
t
I
t
,1
I
l
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Replacement of cxisting cooling systen
Diffrrsion Plant in Tennesseeto inhibit colrosion. In a short-term experiment
lasting 7 weels, Parr et aL (1976)examinedchromigrr damagein potted tobacco
They
plants located 15, 200, 600, and 1400m downwindfrom tbe cooling to\Pers'
levels
found that plants did acclmulate the drift-born chromiuq but by 1400m the
of cbromium were indistingUisbablefrom background. Chromium deposition
was less
damagedplants at the closestsite, and leaf growtb at the 15 and 200 m sites
the authors
that at the 600 and 1400m sites: on the basisof this short-term snrdy,
500
concludedthat there will not be significant accumulationsof chromium beyond
levels in the
m. At oak Ridge GaseousDiffusion Plant" the chromium and zinc
this has
vegetationdecreaseto neal backgroundlevelsat 1 mile from the towers;
(Taylor et aL
not barmed the native vegetation, but did harm the tobacco croP
of chromium
1975). Anotber studywas done to determinewhetherthe deposition
Plant' The
on fescue grasswas seasonalat the Oak Ridge GaseousDiffusion
with
highest chromium concentrations ocsurred in the winter, coresPonding
previous studies' the
morimum oPerational level (Taylor et aL 1983). As with
of chromium was
highest chromium levels were found near the towers; the level
reported to be insignifrcantat the 1500m site'
Anotherpotentialhazardofdriftisthedepositionofsdtsandothersolutes
towers, Edmondset
into the soil. In a general discussionof the impacts of cooling
would exceedincreases
aL (Lg75) predicted that nanrral variability in soil salinity
of sdts from cooling towers
due to cooling towers, and did not think that buildup
of deposition at
would be significant. Simulations of salt drift and measurements
and Mulchi 1984' Mulchi and
the Chalk Point Generating Station (Ainrbruster
were depositedin soils' the rains
Arnrbruster 1983) showedthat" although salts
Point area afevery Pelrneable
returned the soil to normal. The soils in the chalk
Cbaprcr5
washes
with excellentdrainage,andthe regularPreciPitation(averagngL02cn/yr)
have only
the solutcs away. They predictedthat towersat Chalk Point would
rninimalinpact on the soils. The anount of salt depositionnearthe coolingtoute$
from the
in GalvestonBay, Texaswas as much as 12fr) kg/ha-yr at a site 100m
q aI t978)'
torvers,but was small at a site 434 m from tbe towers(Wiedenfield
but were
Levelsof salt in the soilswerehigh aroundthe salt water coolingtdwers,
depositedthe
immeasnrablebeyond434m. The authorswaln that asmore salt is
of the poor
effects may be measurableat greater distancel and that because
calculations'
drainage, the potential for soil degradationexists. Based uPon
I
I
I
I
j
I
wouldqot
Roffuan andRoffman(1973)predictedthat coolingtowerdrift generally
I
(like
Southern
areas
arid
in
but migbt
insease the salt contentof soil siguifrcantly,
l
Califoruia).
I
groundwater
Finalln there is the dangerthat drift solutescould enter the
groundwater
supply. The army draws600 acre-feet/yearfrom the San Onofre
I
the impact on tbe
suppty (u.s. Atomic Enerry commission1973c). whether
I
Otber studieshave
aquifer night be sigdfrcantwould need to be investigated'
lndian PoinL the EIS
addressedthe problem of contaminationof aquifers. At
I
unlikely'
higbly
be
would
groundwater
predicted that intrtrsion of sals into the
of sartdrift on aquifers
T
Roffmanand Roffman(1973)carctrlatedthat the infruence
hundredyears'
shouldnot be significantevenovertime periodsof several
I
towersat soNGS' it
Basedupon the presentanatysisof the impactof cooling
I
vegetatio&
of drift on the rocal
is not possibleto determinethe stateof the impact
I
soils,andgfoundwater.However,itseemsliketythatdriftwouldbedetrimental'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
Rcpliaccmeat of cxising cmling qrtcn
but that the damagewould be restricted to an area near SONGS(perhapswithin a
radius of a few miles).
5.1.2.2BlowdowndisPosal
Becauseof evaporation and drift losses,the solutesin the water in cooling
towersbecomeincreasinglyconcentrated.A portion of this water' called blowdown'
is periodically or continuously discharged;it is replaced by make-up water' The
blowdorpn contai1s concentrated salts plus additives used to Prevent corrosion,
scaling,and biologicat gfowth. In the caseof SONGS,the blowdownwould be
discbargedinto the ocean Technologt for removing some of the solutes exists
(Edmonds et aL Lg75,Anderson et aL 1984,Eichbolz 1985) and certain toxic
materials may degradeor evaPorate(Holavarttr et aL L984q 1984b,Blanchardet cl
1987),but muchwould still be releasedinto the ocea&
life
Tbe consequencesof blowdown solutesfor marine water quality and marine
are not weU snrdied. The Indian Point EIS (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
increase the
corirmissiou LgTg)predicted that the sulfuric acid added would
'itt
concentration of sulfate ion, but it would be within water quality standards'
The EIS predicted
chlorine concentrationswould exceedwater quality standards.
would not adversely
that if the blowdovtn was within water quality standards,it
impact organismsin the HudsonRiver'
water on
Tbe few srudies that havi addressedtbe toxicity of blowdown
caulot be extrapolated to
organismshave not measuredrelevant Par?metersand
raised in a reservoir that
soNGS. For exanple, several speciesof fish were
F
Chapter 5
contain
received blorvdowu water that was high in chromium- These frsh did not
was any
higber levels of chromium than frsh gro\rm in gncontaminatedwater' nor
did not
bioaccnmulatioa of chromium deteeted @lwood et aI L98O)but the study
longevity'
assesswhether the elevated chromigm had any effect on growth rates'
raised in
health or reproductive rates of the fth. A snrdycontrastinggrowth of eels
those
river water with eels raised in warm cooling tower pond water revealed that
in their
raised in sssling to\rrerpond water do not have abnolrnal levels of metals
thosewaters
liver and muscletissues,deqpitetbe higber concentrationsof metals in
becausethe eelsare growingat a greaterrate
(Romeril and Davis Lg76),apparently
(due to the elevatedwater temPeranrre)than the rate at which they can acctrmulate
eels would
metals. However, Romeril and Davis did not examinethe rate at which
tower pond
accumulate metals when held at norrral temperanres in the cooling
of the animals
water, nor did they compare the mortality rates' feanndity or health
It apPears
in &e sseling tower pond water witb animalsin the natural environment'
has not been done'
that rigorous rcsting of the influence of blowdown discharge
present in the
although rwiews of the effests of chlorine and otber solutes
(EPRI t979, Central
blowdoun document the deleteriors effests of these solutes
Electric ResearchIaboratories 1975)'
water
of saline coeling tower
An indirect test of tbe toxicity of blowdown is the rse
were not adversely
for irrigation In Maryland croPs of coru and alfalfa
1982)' Engle 4 aL (1985)
affected by this water (Mulchi and Armbruster 1981,
saline cooling tower water and
irrigated corn and alfalfu crops in Minnesota witb
on tbe"other' hand' Amjd and
found that the crops were not adverselyaffected.
Kban(1986)foundthatalthoughwateringplantswithcoolingtowereffluentsin
plant growth' Becausethe power
India did not reduce germination' it did reduce
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
Rcplaccmeat of cxisting cooling s]'stelr
plant is dischargingchlorides, sulfates,solids and other pollutants, they suggest
treatmentof tie water beforeit is discharged.
The SONGS EIS calculated that blowdown would contain 100 ppt of
I
I
I
I
dissolvedsolids(which is three timesthe concentrationof solutesin the oceag34'7
ppg ru.S. Atomic Enerry Commission1973c).This waterwould be dischargedinto
the ocean. Table 5-3 showsthe compositionof the dischargefrom the presentonce-
T
5.1.2.3Air qualitv
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
If cooling towerswere installed at soNGS, the resultingreducedeffrciency
would mean that the plant could not provide as much energf as it doespresently'
through cooling system. The SONGS EIS mentions periodic use of sodium
hypochlorite. 'The concentrationof total chlorinein the receivingwaterwill be less
than 0.1mg/liter for no more than six 15-minuteperiodsper day."
plant
For example, the Indian Point plant predicted a 4Vo decreasein annual
need to
capacity and a 9Vo reduc1on in Peak generating capacity. SCE would
necessary'
replacethe enerry lost due to reducedefficiencyat SONGS. It would be
Althougb SCE
therefore, for SCE to generatemore energ/ at its fossil-fuel plants'
would first generateelectricityat its mostfuel-efficientplants(B' Mechalas,penonal
produce far more air
communication),any additional use of these plants would
pollutan6 into
pollutants than SONGS. Furthermore,theseplants would release
by constructing
the sou& coast Basin- on balance,air qualitywould be degraded
coolingtowers.
:
t
Chaper 5
I
Table $3
Chemicalcornpositionof water dischargedfrom SONGS'
StatcDcrt (us' AtoEic Elc4y
Frou Table 3J of soNcs uults 2 and 3 Final Earrironmentsl
joUl"Edison' Discbr*p frou
98ryoTl8
Comntssion 19Rc). Bascdon inforuatioa supplicd ty
clted wlll not ch8rge'
Unlt 1 noustbe addedto obtaln total amounts,but conccEtrations
PERUNrr (B/DAY)
iltAxrrfi,tMREI.8ASE
ADDEDBY
}lrnrnau"v
OCCURRING
EACHTJNIT
CHEtrlucAL
Boron
Bromide
Calcium
Celluloscseala,of
Chloridc
Chloriae (frec residual)c
Coppct'
Fluoridc
(Hardacss,total)
Magnesium
Nickclc
Nitratc
Nitrogco, orgalic
Phoepbates,as ortbo
Potassfttn
Sodium
SuUatc
Sulfidc
46,000
65x1d
4.0xld
10
20x 1d
?uod
1S1m
14,000
62xtC'
L%xilCf,
1
34m
1m0
1m
x ld
3.E(t
1.05r ld
?-&xLd
$m
4.6
65
400
2so
145f
1000
19,980
60
70
50
0.m1{.01
1.4
6ZL8
2N
Ltn
0.00(B
034
0.10
0.10
380
10J00
?655
0.10
460d
1.0
115
33
m
a5s
3&@
e50f
0.60
I Arn'acr rirt Errinun cmccotntionsronld mrrduringFknic
llryroutd bGdly bdf of GEd llil'
rtic! citqfitilgretcr
b gti* dircbrrgp froo llrO crlrpcrtur ooty'
c Crblrtcd froar iafornltirn ruplicd bt$GePPlicrots'
d au.d o rrsnncd Drrinuar cirrcioo nre'
MA)grfl ,!,1CoNcENrRAror'l'
T.IANJRAII,.Y
OCCURRING
(PPM)
6dcE3t
neiarcouce
ADDED BIY
EACHTJMT
(PPM)
INCRE{SE
(vo)
0.09
0.05
0"08
0.07
< 0.1
14.4b
< 0.1
0.07
0.0@
o*
0.m?
0.mlb
4-s
0.*
0.ffit
0.wng
0.000665
0.m4
ofr
1S
L92D.
0ffi1,2
l
I
I
j
I
I
7G7tr
a.CI1
0.0?
0.fl
?5,3d
0"67
0s7
4.0
0Jn
0.o7
0.rr
o.l2
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Replaccment of qistiag cmling systsn
5.12.4 CloudFcirmationandFogging
Qssting towers releasehuge guantities of water vaPor into the atmosphere
that can form clouds under appropriate meteorological conditions. A model
developedby Neiwiadomshi and Haman (1984) predicted that large Po\rer plants
(5000 lvf\il| could increase
within 5-7 km of the plant by uP to 70Vo,given
favorable conditions. They recoulmendthat this possibilitybe closely examined
during environrnentalimpactshrdiesbefore coolingtowersare installed. Tberefore,
concetn exists about their potential for modifying the weather. The degree and
frequency of cloud forrration dependson tower constructionand meteorological
factors. An extensivereview for the Indian Point Unit showedthat cloud fornation
due to coolingtowerswould occur,and the cloudsmight alter precipitationPattems
in an area The plume from the towen at Indian Point was predicted to reduce
sunshinefor a few minuteseachday,but the increasein precipitationwaspredicted
by
to be gndetectable (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cornmission1979)' Observations
Kramer et aL (1976) in West Virginia showedthat the cooling tower plumes can
new
modi$ the local atmosphere,both by increasingcloud cover and by creating
(1975)
cloud formations. Shadowingeffect on the ground occurred. Car"Fistron
found a precipitation band extending30 km downwindfrom a nuclear Po$'erPlant
in France,&d an augmentationin the agount of snowfallthere'
is a potential
A further problem is tbe possibility of ground-levelfog: This
hazardous(Hall er
hazard becauseit could make driving near cooling towers more
that foggingbas not
aL 1987). In the Indian Point EIS, a review of foggingrevealed
united states,England
been a problem around nanrral draft cooringtowersin the
rt
Chapter5
would be small (4
or Switzerland,and they predicted that the increasein ground fog
Mechanical draft
hr per yeal) if natural draft tou'erswere installed at Indian Point'
towers' sioce
tourershave a greater potential for producing fog tban nanrral draft
One Indian Point
they releasetheir water vapor at about 50 ft insteadof 300''500ft'
year if
EIS estimate Predicted an increase of nearly 100 hours of fogging Per
mechadcal draft towerswere installe4 .
touter would
The EIS for SONGS Units 2 and 3 predicted that a cooling
conditiors'
produce a plume and sometimesfog under some(unspecified)weather
I'5' The SONGS
and that tbe plume could reducevisibility for driverson Highway
the frequency.
EIS stated tbat this would only happen rarely, but did not estimate
visible, or whether
The EIS does not mention how often a plume is expectedto be
due to a plume are
any changesin precipitation Pattenuior in the amount of shading
Cornmission1973b)
expected. The EIS for SONGS Unit 1 (U.S. Atomic Energt
towetswere installed'
estimatedan increaseof 90 hours of fog Per year if cooling
5.1.2.5Noise
pump' airflor-induced
Sourcesof noise ia soeling towensinclude tbe water
waterfall noise (Edmondser
rcsonancg fan noise (in mccbanical draft towen), and
aL1975).Theloudestoftheseisthewaterfallnoise.Theanorrntofnoise
the flow tbrougb the tower'
produced by towers dependson their size and type and
and 90 DB'
the noise level at toqrersis uzuallybetween80
that
states
Edmonds
,
in modern societY,and
Noise pollution is a growingand seriousproblem
los and deafness- To Put the
excessivenoise may'causeprogressivehearing
I
I
I
I
I
j
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
T
I
I
I
I
i
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
Replaccoent of cxisting cooling slatco
table
magnitudeof noiseProducedby cooling towersin perspective,the folloving
presentsthe noiselevelsfor somecommoDsounds:
100db
Powermox/ers
tarm tracor
iackhnmmer
-motorcycle
(8 m)
jet (300m)
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
dieseltnrck
bnsy'citystreet
80db
70 db
garbagedisposal vacuumcleaner
freewayaaf6c (15 n)
averaqetadory
freighi train (1a n)
dishwasher
Noisesabove80 dB causehearingdanageafter long'term exPosure'
I
l
90db
where
The influence of the noiseproducedby cooling towerswould dependuPoD
the towerswere located. Ednonds et aL (L975)predid that the noisefrom
is similu:
cooling towers would probably not affect wildlife adversely,as the sound
area)'
to that of a waterfall, a soundfound in nature (thougb not in the SanOnofre
tonespeals
Suchsteadyand gniform broad-bandrandom noiseswith no large Pure
a recreational
in mid-range are easyto adapt to. However, if the towers were on
from the
area or near a state beacb' visiton dg"t find that tbe noise detracts
ft (Capanoand
serenity of the area- Soundlevels can be as hrgh as 60 dB at 2'000
may find the noise
Bradly tg74). If the towers are close to work areas' workers
rright not offend or it
amroyingor objectionable. However, at a distance,the noise
The Indian Point study
migbt not be noticeable above the sound of trafEc on I-5.
at sites used by people at
included an analysisof the augnentation of noise levels
would be necessar!'at
various locations surrounding the towers. Such a snrdy
SONGSif coolingtowerswerebuilt'
F
t
Chapter 5
5.1.2.6Aesthetics
California
SONGS is located atong a very scenicportion of the Southern
of gently rolling terrain
coastline. The area is characterizedby 'nobstructed views
with cliffs leading dou,nto sandybeaches.
Cooling towerswould require more than
room besideSONGS
30 acresof land, and SCE has statedtbat there is not enough
Southern California
to place them there (J.8. Palm et,penonal communication)'
two possibilities on the
Edison (J.B. Palmet, p*sonal commtadcation) suggested
The aestheticimpact of
inland side of I-5, one of whicb is on State Park land'
be highly visible; typical
cooling towers would be substantial. The towers would
(However' it is possible
nanrral draft towers are 400 ft in diameter and 400 ft high'
B' Mechalas' penonal
that less-obtrusive towers could be constructed;
the visual impact would be
communication.) On dayswhen there is a visible plume,
iself and would be visible
much greater than the physical structure of the tower
that the plume producedby
from a greater distance. For example,it was predicted
extend as far as 20 to 30 miles
the Rancho Seconahrral draft cooling towers could
1973a)' A large number of
before dissipating (U.S. Atomic Energt Commission
segment of Interstate 5 is
people would see the towers and plume daily, as this
would be necessaryto tell how
uaversed by thousandsof motoriss daily. Modeling
and to surveywhat t)?es of use
visible the towers would be from different.locations,
visible from'
fall within the areasthat the to$'eF will be
comrdssioa 1979) stated
The Indian Point EIS (u.s. Nuclear Regulatory
be tbe most significant social and
could
to\r'ers
cooling
of
impacts
visual
&at the
Act also recognizesthe importance of
economic impact The california coastal
visual qualities of coastar areas shall be
aesthetics, stating that "the scenic and
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
l
T
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
Replaccmentof cxistingcmliry systcn
(Section3051 of the
consideredand Protectedas a resourceof public importance"
Califoraia CoastalAct).
tbe CoastalAa
As one meanqof protecting the scenicqualities of the coasL
nanrral land forms"
states that development should "miniqrioe the alteration of
about the need
(Section30251). In keepingwith this Policy,the Permit was explicit
The constnrction
rc minimize destnrction of the coastal bluffs near SONGS'
of additional bluff
associatedwitb cooling towers would result in the destnrction
location of the
area The extent of bluff destructionwould dependon the specific
the freeway(abouta
coolingtowers. If the towerswere locatedon the intandsideof
the freeway and
mile from the plant), it would be necessar)'to nrnnel underneath
other hand, a more
into the hills, defacingat least some of the seacliffs. on the
were constnrcted
extensive blutr area would be destroyed if the cooling to\r'ers
downcoastof Units 2 and 3.
5.1.2.? Summar.vof AssociatedImpacts
IfsoNcshadbeencoDstn.lctedwithcoolingtowersinsteadofusingaonce.
on the marine environment
througb spsling systeE,someof the substantialimpacts
terrestrial impactsand new
would not have occ'ged. In their place,there would be
to estirnate' salt drift would be
marine impacts,the magniode of whicb is difficult
the tolvers' Noise levels would
detrimental to plants, but probably only close to
slightly more frequent' but these
increase, and it is possible that fog might be
impactswouldprobablynotbesubstarrtial.Blowdowndisposalintheoceanwould
Perhapsmost substantialwould be the
add toxins to the marine environment.
Chaptcr 5
destrustion of the coastal
detraction from the aestheticaPPealof the area and tbe
habitats,partiarlarly the coastalblufB'
sesling tonrerswould
In addition to the impactsEentioned above,the use sf
efEciencTand the
decreasethe efficiency of soNGS becauseof lower condenser
into higher electricity costs
additional pumping requireneuc. This would translate
for usersand greater air pollution in tbe south coast Basin
5.13 FeasibilitY
tecbnicallyfeasible'
Although retrofrttingsoNGS Units 2 and3 is probably
wouldincludetechnologtthat
this projestwouldPresentmanydiffiegltiesbecauseit
is untestedandbecausethe scaleof the Projectis solarge'
with drift and
Althougb dry torrers do not produceproblemsassociated
small (<200 tvf\l/) fossil fuel
blowdown,they havepresentlybeenusedonly with
are only rsed by a few
plants in cool climates. wet/dry mechanicaldraft toqters
about lgvo more than wet
posrer stationsin the 200 tvf\il riange'and they cost
beenusedat a plant as large as
never
have
towers
cooling
wet
Saltwater
to\rre6.
of tbe unProventechnologt'
SONGS,andcostoverrunsseerptikelybecause
if the plant were originally
A retrofit of a plant is more diffisult than
the intake pipesare currentlypointing
example,
For
towers.
6psling
for
designed
adaptthe sl6tem'it would be
To
towers'
cooling
by
use
for
the wrong directiou
out andbackup the beacb' A
to build a ctrwingpipelinefrom the plant
necessary
to suPPortthe pipe
wouldbe necessary
scE engineersaid a hugeconcreteancbor
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
,l
I
I
l
Replaccmcnt of cxisting cmling systcE
the
againqt the force of the water. This plan would also require a tunnel below
freeway for the pipes to carry water up the hilts; it is not lnown whether tbe
Department of Transportation would give SCE permission to tunnel under the
freeway. Because"theto\rers will be 200 feet uphill, a large pumping capacitywould
be required.
is
cooling towers require a great deal of space. Edison contendsthat there
not sufficient lpace next to the plant and that they would therefore need to obtain
land for the towen. The nearestPotential locations,either land owned by the
Marine Base, or land from the State Parlq are about a mile away and across
on
Interstate 5. It is not known whether SCE could acquire permissionto build
theselands.
In summary,the scal. o, *,
constructionneeded to retrofit SONGS with
of the
cooling towers is enormous. Many technical asPectsrelating to the design
design
towers would have to be overcome. Although it seernslikely that these
botb
problerns could eventually be solved, the solutions are likely to be costiy,
is implemented'
frnancially and in terms of delap as unProven technologt
land that doesnot
Furthermore, there are logistical obstaclesrelating to the use of
belong to SCE tbat might not be solvable'
5.1.4 Costs
Thecostforreplacingopen-cyclecoolingwithcoolingtowersisquitehigh'as
plant operated by
was demonstratedat Indian Point Unit 3, a nuclear Power
york. Natural draft coolingtowerswere used at
consolidated Edison co. of New
i
Cbaptcr5
the reduction in the
an estimatedcost of $338 millis4 not including the cost of
peak capacity'
generating capacity of the Plant (4Vo of.averagePower zrrd 9Voof
towers could be
Consolidated Edison Co. 1979). Table 5-1 indicates that cooling
qpe built
expectedto cost at least $40S500millisq dependingon the
cooling towers at
In 1981, SCE estimated that the cost for converting to
in 1980dollars (Gardner
soNGS would be in the rangeof $800millisa to $1 billion
by SCE put the total
1981). This estimate is probably still valid. Recent estimates
and $1 billion' In
cost of retrofrtting cooling towers at between $500 million
remaining life of the
addition, they project an additional $1 billion cost over the
(J' Palmer' SCE'
plant due to reduced efficiency caused by the cooling towers
penonnl communication).
costs if
In addition to the frnancial costs, there would be environmental
towers can have signifrcant
cooling towers were used at SONGS. Cooling
through the deposition
environmentar impacts,both on the terrestrial environment
of biocides and corrosionof drift, and on water quality becauseof the addition
inhibiting chemicalsto the cooling water (Section5.12).
s2 Coolingpondsand canals
I
I
t
I
t:
t
I
r
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
but
soNcs).UsingsPraypondsandcarralswouldreducethesizeofacoolingpondby
I
still be neededto cool the water from
a factor of 20, but at least 1fi) acreswould
I
I
of rejectingwasteheat'
coolingpondsare an economicalandprovenmethod
lvfw (i'e.' 2000to 6p$ acresat
require about 1 to 3 acresof level land per
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
Repliacementof cxising cooling s)lsten
fogs
SONGS. A buffer zone of 30G500m is required to confine the effectsof steam
and drift effectsto the site.
There are two major problems with cooling ponds and canals' First' the
scarcity of fresb water would necessitatethe use of salt water' and salt drift can
damagethe surroundingterresUial environment(see Section5'12'1)' The drift
from spray ponds is likely to be less extensive than from cooling towers' but
nonethelessthis alternative would result in shifting environmental effects from the
marine environnent to the terrestrial environment.. Second, a relatively large
anount of land is required. The land requirementis partiarlarly difficult to solve'
SONGS is sinrated along a relatively narrow strip of land on the Ca:np Pendleton
Marine corps base. The coastlinenear soNcs consistsmostly of narrow beach
power
bounded by high bluffs, with San Onofre State Beachjust upcoastof the
plant; the SanDiego Freewayparallelstbe coastabout30C500m inland' Southern
which are used
C-aliforniaEdison has an &4-asreeasementfor SONGS,68 acresof
traa bave
by the three units (SCE 1973a).Tbus,only about 16 acresof the originat
ponds or canals'
been left undisturbed,which is clearly not sufficient for even sPray
if additional
It is not known whether additional land might be available,but even
sPacefor
land could be obtained,it would be difficult or impossibleto find suf6cient
the freeway' even
a cooling pond. There is little flat area on the oc€an side of
found directly nortb of
consideringtbe top of the blufts; sufficient area could be
side of tbe freeway'
soNGS, but it would be at least 500 m away on tbe other
ldgistical dif6culties
I-ocating a cooling pond at this site would encounterthe same
noted for coolingtowers(Section5'13)'
Chaptcr 5
for
The dirfreulties and uncertainties associatedwitb finding sufEcient land
this
coeling or spray Ponds, along with the new environmental effects, mean that
alternative is not feasible at SONGS.
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
CHAPTER6
MODIIIICATION OF OPERATIONS
(1)
Three types of modifications to plant Operationsare considered:
while the plant
scbeduling operations to avoid critical periods, (2) reducing flow
continuesto operate,&d (3) modifying the heat treatment procedures'
6.1 Schedulingoperationsto avoidcritical periods
mitigation
Qglailing plant oPerationsat specifrctimesmight be a reasonable
(Marcy et al' 7980)'
technique if it results in a disproportionatereduction in impacts
involved
This techniquehas been utilized on the HudsonRiver, where the utilities
to reduce
were wilIing to implement flow reductionsand scheduledsbutdowns
et aL 1984)'
sn6?inmsnt in order to avoid constructingcoolingtowers(Barnthouse
of fish and
While tbe plant is not oPerating(i.e., producing power) the entrapment
not alwap comPletely
sl6ainmsal of fish lawae are greatly reduced. Lossesare
(often 50Voduring part of
eliminated when the plant is off-line becausesomeflow
producingPo\r'er'but fisb
the siheduled outage) ocors even when the plant is not
be substantially lou'er'
mortality are reduced because the flow rate would
of kelp recruitment could
Scheduling SONGS to avoid operation during periods
kelp recruitment e'ents to
alleviate the problem of water nrrbidity and allow normal
occur near SanOnofre.
Cbapter 6
6.1.1 Potential reductionsin losses
were seasonal
Shutting down SONGS would be most effective if there
was very seasond
variation in the risk to a species. The abundanceof fish lawae
spring' The
(Figure e1). Most specieswere most abundant in late winter/early
in fact' March alone
abundanceof alt speciescombined peaked sharply in March;
while April accounted
accounted for 3l7oof the total ichtbyoplankton abundance,
ichthyoplankton
for an additional 25Vo. Details about the monthly pa$erns of
abundancenear SONGSare Presentedin AppendixB'
the savingsthat
The ichthyoplankton abundancedata can be usedto evaluate
This andysis is
could be achieved by resctreduhngthe operation of soNGS'
presentedin detail in APPendixB'
be achievedby
A substantial reduction in the loss of ichthyoplankton could
aPPearsto be the
restricting plant operations during early sPrin& This technique
ichthyoplankton By ceasing
one most likely to be effective for reducing lossesof
25 billion fewer lanrae
operations completely dgring March and April, rougbly
aruing the qrrent losses
would be killed than under the presentoperating schedule,
with estimatedadult equivdent
in half (rable G1). cousidering only the 13 species
by not operatingSONGSin
losses>!Vo,827 million fewer larvae would be killed
this savingscould be increasedto
March and April (agaig ortting the lossesin half);
SONGSin Augsr
more than 1 billion lanraeby also not operating
If,theplantdoesnotproducePowerinMarchandAprilbutoneormore
pumpscirctrlateswaterwhiletheplantisoff-line,thesavingsinfishlarvaewouldbe
I
I
r
t
t
T.
I
I
r
l.
l.
I
I
T
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
I
ModiEcation of
3500
rf)
E 3000
o
c)
+ 2500
\
o
z 2000
=
a 1500
zLd
o 1000
z
Ir,
=
T
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
t
3500
SPECIES
TOTAIMINUSAhICHOVT
r7)
E 3000
o
o
+ 2500
\
o
z, 2000
E
a 1500
=
ld
G
z
fi
=
1000
500
0
j
J
iMAMJ
AsoND
nearSONGS' Shownarethe
p.aT9.qof larvaltish abundances
Figure&1: Seasonalmlnusnorthernanchovyfor each
estimatedoensrryot totatrisn ririi;;E-iotaiiarvae
andllow rate
of larvalabundance
tunaton
wiiiuJ i
month. Astuat
"';#fi#,;i';ititE5
throughthe Plant.
109
t
Chaptcr 6
t
Table 6-1
possibtereduction in entrainrnent of frsh lanae from eliminating tlow during certain months'
total- spccics
Data an prescutcd for total spccics,northcra anchory (the most abundsEt specics),
(AEL
spocics)' Loss
minus anchory, and 13 spccicswlth csrims&d adutt equivalcnt losscs ?1%
(sce
prevcntedms calcutatcdas the number of lanae that would be entnined in thc months notcd
(sce
Tsble 82) minus the number that would not bc enaained under tbe prcscot opcratiug scbedule
Table BS).
I
t
T-
Irss PRE\EI\rrED BY EUMIt'IllrING FLow DURING:
SPEoES/
GROUP
FEBRUARY,
ldARcH & '
APRJL
T{ARCH&
APRIL
t
ldARcll,
APRIL&
AUGUST
Vo
x10e
Vo
3.82
68
z.An,
55
52
2.4444
n
L.74L4
y
0.9G8
6
10488
53
1.1388
58
auccolish
0.09t9
18
o.wn,
$
a24T'
52
Giant Lelpfish
0.0c$
t3
0.m29
.A
0.0011
18
White croaler
0.6650
76
0.75@
86
0.66ru
76
Califoruia gnraioa
0.0017
10
0.m17
10
o.wu
1:}
Blacl croaler
0.qxxxp, 0.06
-14
.olnu
0.m$
43
0.m49
63
0.0180
12
o.mD
U
x10e
Vo
Total
25432
49
Northcra aachovY
L.6444
Total minus anchotry
Califorairacorbina
Chcctspot gobY
0"fl'70
Recf finspot
{xm06
5
-14
xl0e
0.00qxl2 0.06
-14
4.mu
9
0.0il5
{.00106 -14
l..
Arrow goby
0.01?2
32
o.wz
n
0.0195
X
Jac}snelt
0.923
n
0.0493
60
0.s23
52
0.q20
9
0.0052
A
0.m47
2L
ShadowgobY
Diamond turbot
0.0(B3
30
0.0053
48
0.0035
32
California clingFsh
0.0019
19
0.0019
19
0.0035
v
TotdAEL sPccies
0&6942 48
0.9$t42
55
L.0Lw2
59
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
t
I
I
I
t
l
l
I
I
t
Modification of oPcrations
at SONGSis to
lessthan indicatedin Table 6.1. The generaloPeratingProcedure
refueliqg and
have no flow through the .PumPs during balf of the scheduled
maintenanceperiod, then have two of tbe four pumps operating during the other
In recent
half of tbe period (A Dykes and D. pilmgl, penonal commttnication)'
mighl be expected
years this bas Dot alwa)Ebeen the case(seeAppendix B), but it
to occur in the future.
Unit
if only one
The savingswould be only half as g;ezt as indicated in Table 6'1
a 24-month
was offtine eachyear,aswould be the caseif SONGSoperatedon
be reducedby
fuel cycle; even in this case,howevet,the loss of fish larvaewould
25Vo.
further reduced
From a Bigbt-wide persPecdve,the savings might be
replacementPower'
dependingon which fossil fuel plant SCE operatesto provide
replacementpower is
The impacB wiu be quite different, dependingon whether the
intakes' If SCE
produced at a plant with offshore intakes or harbor or canal
is similar to that
operatesa plant witb an offshorc intake, where larval abundance
entrained into that plant
near SONGS, more lanae will be killed when tbey are
actualnumberwill dependon
thanwould be the caseif soNcs wasoperating.The
of electricity generated' For
the volume of water passedthro-ughthe plant per lvf\il
gPm/lvfw generated'while ormond
exarrple, soNGS Units 2 and 3 circulate 755
were identical off of San
Beach cirsulates 3t7 gpm/MW; even if larval abundances
would kill only half as many lanrae as
onofre and ormond Beach, ormond Beach
electricity. Nonetheless' operating
soNGS to generate the same amount of
OrmondBeachinMarchandAprilwouldreducethesavingsoffrshlarr'aeshownin
TabteGlbyabouthalf.ThesituationwouldbequitedifferentifscEoperatesa
Cbapter 6
abundant
plant with a harbor or canal intake. At tbesestations,frsh larvae are Dot
if they were
in March and April (Appendix B); thesestationswould kill few larvae
operated in place of SONGSin March and April.
the
Variors combinations of pumP operations could further reduce
63)' For
entrainmentof fish larvaewhile rninimidng the costsinvolved(seeSection
(Section 62)' in
example, reducing the flow of water throughout the winter
savingSthat
conjunction with no flow in March and April' would greatly increasethe
could be achieved.
not have a
Unlike the case for fish larvae, the older lifestagesof fish did
adult frsh can be
Biurout period of high abundance. The risk for juvenile and
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
FigUresG2 and G3
assessedusing Eean monthly entraPment rates at SONGS'
species
present these riatesfor the older lifestagesof tbe most commonlyentrapped
combined' The
at SONGS, queenfish and northern anchovy,as well as all species
number (Figrre 6-2)
entrapment of northern anchovywas highly seasonal,for both
months would be
and biomass (Figrse &3). Restricting operationsdruing summer
soNGS' effect on
likely to reduce the enuapment of northern anctrovies.However,
summermosths are
anchoviesis negligDle sincemost anchoviesare found offshore;
so restricting operatioru
arso the months wben tbe demand for power is higbest
problems for SCE with regardsto
druing these months could causeseverelogistical
was somewhatlou/er during
providing replacement Power. QueenfrsbentraPment
year (especiallybiomass,Figure 6-3)'
the winter months than at other times of the
which plant operations could be
but there is no limited period of time during
Similarly' tbere is no period
restricted in order to reduce queenfishentraPmenl
could be substantiallyreducedry
during which the total weight of fish entrapped
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
and aclult tish at SONGS:
tweJrll-e
engapr-n^ell,ot
total
ot
pattem
Seasonal
Lncnow-and
Fiaure&2:
nurhuer.oriu'dlhlithlj9ryiJrn
the esgm-CteE
Nrrmbers. shdwr,-are
rn;46 for queenfish'
#fi-diriiii.-lroiiinE-i'rringe
2and3
i{-ij;c
fishentrapped
to
02
vl
E
t!
E
5
0.'l
=
jrsoND
JFMAUJ
NOFTHERN
Al.tcl-lchff
ol
o
a
g,
lrJ
E
=
505
=
J
F
U
A
U'J
jrsoND
15
ID
o
o
t
g
trJ
E
=
=
z
.!r
r
ffii
UON1H
113
s o N D
Cbapter 6
adult fish at SONGS:
Ftqure &3: Seasonal Pattem of glqapment ot fwe-nlle 119
anchow ancltoEl
gr6mass. Shown are ttre eqtlmiteo otomassoriuSe-nfi6n, northem
3 ;th montr. noiei6e-i-n-Jnges ln scale for blomass'
fish entrappedai"inGE;A
25O0'r
OUEENFISH
I
I
I
I
G
!t 15Oo
o
2
3 tooo
6
t"
500
FTi
n
j
j
A s
o N D
NORl?lERtl
ANCHonrr
I
I
r'
o
-"
t
=
I
I
T
T
T
o
E
JFUAUTI
jAsoND
7000'r
60005t!00.
t
ttl
-
o
2
=
o
E
1000,
3000
2000
1000
0
jFuAu.l
j
isoND
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
l
I
I
I
t
Modi8cation of oPcrations
limited period of
restrictingplant oPerations(FigUre6-3). Tbe absenceof a very
a very effective
peak abundancemeanqthat reducingplant operationswould not be
techniquefor reducingthe lossof juvenile and adult fish.
kelp recruitment
At the San Onofre and San Mateo kelp beds the higbest
SONGS to
occurs in tbe winter and spring (Technical Report K)' Rescheduling
the problem of water
avoid operation during recruitment periods could alleviate
San Onofre' Tbe
turbidity and allow normal recnritment events to occur neal
to 4 weels per year'
conditiors necessaryfor kelp recnritmenttypicallyoccuronly 3
it very diffisult to
but tbe timing of the recmitmentwindowis unpredictable,making
However'restricting
scheduleperiods of restrictedoperationsspecificallyfor kelp'
and April (the time
flow any time betweenFebruary and June, including March
unl<nownextentproposedfor reducinglamal fish losses),would increase to some
kelp recnritmentat the SanOnofreKelp bed'
the chancesfor successful
6.1J TechnicalfeasibilitY
at soNGS' orrrently'
It certainly is posible to ceaseproducing Pou'er
varioustimes for variousreasons'
soNGS occasionallydoesnot producePowerat
1984to 1988'Units 2 and 3 did not
as noted in Table 6-2 andAppendixB. From
flow on about 46 of tbese daln'
produce power about 116 dayslYed, and had no
at soNGS' but rather how to
The problem is not ho\trto ceaseproducingPower
havetheplantoff|ineduringthespecificperiodsofcriticatlyhighabundancesoffisb
larvae.
q
Chaptcr 6
Table 62
OperatingHistory of SONGSUnits 2 and 3'
- ildicstes Do outag3. . bdlcatcs scbcduledrcfueling outsgls.
MoNIfl/YEAR
UNIT 2ScIrFt I.eD
Fonco
OUTAGES
(DAYS)
e16
FonCP
OUTAGES
SCHEDULED
OUTAGES
(oevs)
(oavs)
ao
data
0.9
no
12185
L/s7
2/s7
3lsl
4ls7
qQ
JJ
data
,xlf
aoa
113'
1.6
s/s7
4.1
6/s7
7lsl
8/s7
t
ea
elsT
t.r a
LO/gl
tna
Lu87
12/gl
1/8r
2/A
3/8
4/8
5/8t
6/8
7188
8/8E
UNIT3-
tt
LO/%
Lu%
OUTACES
(DAYS)
€
1L6'
0.06
9a
149
4"8
t't o.
tla
tf|a
t.l
!o
data
ao
a
data
elt8
10/t8
u/88
12/8
Llt9
2lw
31t9
4/8
slse
19.4
10.9
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
l'
L4
rot
avoid operating during citical
Two alternative strategiescorld be used to
refueling and maintenancewould
periods. In the frrst alternative, all of soNGS'
I
I
I
T
I
T
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
'l
I
I
I
t
,l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
Modi6cation of oPerations
SONGSwould
take place during the period of highestichthyoplanktonabundances'
principal difference being
operatefor about the srme number of dayseachyear, the
marntenanceare
that its sffline periods, during whicb refueling and scheduled
abundances'
performed, would coincidewith the period of highssl ichthyoplankton
wben ichthyoplankton
In tbe second alternative, SONGS would be offline
period fe1 lgfusling
are highestin addition to its normally scheduled
abunda.nces
and maintenancewitb
and naintenance. If SONGScould not coordinaterefueling
would have more daysoffline
the period of highestichthyoplanktonabundances,it
periods' Operating fewer
eachyear in order to avoid oPeratingduring thesecritical
greater enissions of
dayseachyear would causetrro environmentalconsequences:
of fish lanrae' Greater
air pollutants at other SCE planS, ild lower savings
to replace the electricity not
emissionswould occur becauseSCE would need
fuel plans' Lower savingsof
producedat soNGS by generatingelectricityat fossil
be entrained at other Power
fish larvae would occur becausemore larvae would
thesestationswould be required to
stationstban would othenrise be tbe case,since
can be minimized by operating
operate for more daln. This latter consequence
Mandalay' I3ag Beach' Alamitos'
plana witb protected or harbor intakes (sucb as
seasonarpattem of ichtbyoplankton
and unia 16 of Redondo Beacb), where the
B)' Also, there would be a savingsin
abundancesis quite different (see Appendix
planS in general) cirailates
larvae in any casebecauseSONGS(and nuclearPo\Per
than do fossil fuel plants'
more m3 of water per K\il of electricity generated
that soNGS refuels at exactly
There are technical difficulties with irsuring
very
timing of refuelingin a nuclearplant is
the sametime eachyear. Managingthe
the issueis much too complicated
complex,manyvariablesneed to be considered;
I
Chapter6
disctssesthe
to be discussedin detail here. The simplifiedanalpis that follorvs
length of the
technicaldiffisglties in trro categories:problemswith adjustingthe
April)' and the
fuel cycte to matcb the critical periods (paniarlarly March and
at a nuclear
uncertainty associatedwith schedulinglsfusling and maintenance
powerplanr
the lengthof the fuel cycle
6.1.2.1A-djusting
of higbestlan'al
soNGS couldin principleavoidoperatingduringthe period
units did not operate
abundanceif both unia refueledon a l2-monthcycleandboth
a 24-monthcycleand
duringMarch andApril eachyear,or if both unis refueledon
and April' A L2Units 2 atd3 alternatedyearsof not operatingduring March
than the currentfuel
montb cyclewould be shorter,and a 24'monthcyclelonger'
cycleusedat SONGS.
would involve
Adjusting the length of the fuel cycle used at soNGS
core designis ortremely
redesigningthe fuel and how it is placedin the reactor.
for a fuerloadingplan are
compler The variablestbat mustnormallybe considered
numberof freshfuel assemblies
tbe fuel enrichment(frssilecontetrtof the fuel), tbe
of the fresb and partially sPent
to be loaded(reload batci size),the aEangemeBt
used to control tbe ercess
fuel assembliesin tbe reactor' and the techniques
1979)' SONGS'coreutilizesa 16x
reactivityof the reactorduringtbe cycle(Graves
posts'there are?36 pin positionsat
16 arralt' witb 20 positionsreservedfor guide
I
I'
I
I
TI
I
r'
f:
l.
I
I
T
I
I
whichfuelrodsorbrrrnablepoisonrods(boronassembliesthatareusedtocontrol
startedwith 100poisonrods' the
SONGS
Althougtr
placed.
be
can
tbe reactivity)
I
(D' Pilmer'
used
now
are
thousands
and
core designhas becomemore complex
I
I
Modifrcation of oPcrations
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
t
l
I
I
I
t
absorber (also borou) is
SCE, peyolal communication). In addition' a neutron
sf geg6slling reactivity'and
dissolvedin the reactor coolalt as an additionalmeans
designof eachnew load of fuel at
the concentrationof this ftuid can be varied. The
departuresiD core desigD'
SONGS,which involvesfine-truring rather than dramatic
(D. Pilmer, scE' percotul
typicauy involves a $250,000 engineering task
"
involve
would
design
core
the
commwication). Obviously, large shanges in
substantiallYgreater efforts'
constraintson core design'
There are both technical and regulatory/safety
fuel (with asu)' the
the
of
enrichment
the
include
The technical corstraints
worthiness of the fuel rods (which
distribution of power in the core, and the
The regulatory/safetyconstraints
currently are used for npo cyclesat SONGS)'
different scenarios'sucb as loss of
under
behaves
fuel
the
Properly
tbat
irsures
at full power)'
coolantaccidensand transientevents(e.g.,uB
in the core after refueling a fuel
Becausea portion of the old fuel remains
quickly' It takes a number of cycles
achieved
be
cannot
length
partiorlar
a
of
cycle
desired cycle (and even then the
the
achieve
to
reactor
new
a
of
after the starnrp
in
to unexPectedeven6' as described
due
pernrrbations
coDstant
cycle undergoes
would
changein the lengfh of the fuel cycle
the uext secdon). Similarly, any large
take
at 18 tj24 mOnthsper cycle'it could
cycles;
several
over
achieved
be
to
ueed
manyyearsto implement substantialchanges'
and
arrrently replacedat eachrefueling,
At soNcs, balf of the fuel rods are
unexpected
Power Days (EFPDs). @ecause
the fuel cycle is 525 Effective Full
wilr usuallybe
betweenscheduledoutages,there
shutdowru
force
frequently
events
rl
I
Chaptar 6
fuel tsed at SONGSis
more than 525 calendar dap betwega sgfuglings') The
enrichedto 4.Lcioa{J.
Longerfuel qcle
be enrichedto a
To achievea longer fuel cycle,the fuel would need to
to be replacedduring
greaterextentor a higherProportionof the corewouldneed
witb longer fuel cydes
eacbrefueting. In fact, tbere are few nuclearPowerplants
a'U, whichmightallowSONGSto moveto a
than SONGS.A 4.9Voenrichmentof
the CalvertCliffs nuclear
600day cycle,is orrently beingusedfor the frrst time at
yet (D' Pilner' penorul
power ptanL but there are no operationaldata available
possible'Southern
commaticUion). Altbough a longer fuel cycleis tbeoretically
the state'of'the-art(D'
california Edison feels that the c'rrent designrepresents
Pilmer, S[ff',Penonalammunication)'
Shonufuel qde
a shorter fuel cycle at
There are no technical diffistrltieswith achieving
plannedfor the units (soNGS
soNGS, a8d i8 fud al2-monthcyclewasorigiully
SCE onsiders tbe longer fuel
Final EnvironmentalStatement,19?3). Horever,
l2'month q'cle' A longerfuel cycle
the
over
advantages
considerable
have
to
c,ycles
at SONGS(therebyreducingthe
generated
electricity
of
amognt
tbe
insreases
operatingand maintenancecos1qreduces
amountof fossil fuel bgrned),decteases
t
T.
I
I
I
t
I
r
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
theqrrantitiesofliquidandsolidradioactivewaste(someofwhicharediscbarged
the
at
spentfuel producedand stored
into the ocean),and reducesthe amountof
I
site(Nunn1989).
I
I
r
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
T
t
I
t
Modifrcation of oPcrabons
units for refueling and
Most importantly, it is not possibleto scbeduleboth
corsiderations' Tbrs' at
maintenanceat the sane time due to safetyand logistical
period' and becauseof the
most one unit could be offline during tbe March/Aptil
period it is unlikely tbat the
possibility of unexpectedextensiors of tbe refueling
other unit could be scheduledto irnmediatelyfollow.
and logistical advantagesto
O,r,erall, there are frnancial, environtnental'
cycle
SCE hasmovedawayfrom a 12-month
longer fuel cycles. As a consequence'
to the Presentcycleof 18monthsor so'
FlsibilitY in fuel cYcle
in the length of the fuel
Finally, it is worth noting that there is someflexibility
EFPD' there is a window of
525
say,
for,
designed
be
might
fuel
the
cycle. Althougb
which tbe unit could be shut down'
25 dayson either side of the 525 EFPD during
load was designedfor bas ramifrcations
Shutting down earlier or later than the fuel
early' the fuel assembliesthat are
for the following cycle: if the unit is shut down
than expected'wbereasif the unit
reactivity
more
have
cycle
next
the
in
again
used
less reactivity' The changesin reactivity
is shut down late these assemblieshave
next cycle(which requiressomelead
would necessitatechangesin the designfor the
next fuel cycle'
time), 3sd rnighl alter the length of the
Full PowerDap (EFPDs)
Fuel cyclesare designedin terms of Effecdve
eventscanocculbetweenrefuelingS
ratherthan calendardays.VariousunexPected
the outagesthat
Table 6-3 summarizes
that alter the schedule. For example,
-r
I
Chaptcr 6
time period January
occured betweenrefuelingsat SONGSUnits 2 znd3 for the
eyeutscansedSONGSto be offline for
1987and May 1989;on average,unexpested
periodvariesin length
28 dala betweensgfuslings.In addition'the actuallsfusling
that needsto be
from sycle to cycle, dependingprimarily on the mainteoance
work is required' Tbeseunexpected
performe4 but also on wbetherunexPected
eventsaffestthe total tengtbof the fuel cycle'
1987and
Sumnary of outages8t SONGSUnits 2 and 3 betweenJanuary
May 1989'
DA
88.9
6E.3105.6
3
0-203
4
L6fi5
4
Outagpsbctrccn rcfuclingS:l
Schcdulcdaaintcnalcc
EquiPmcstfailure
Adninittttatiw
55
991
r99
?J.M
LO
l
I
I
lI
I
Table G3
Sche&lcd rcfucling Perids
t
2s
0.0.1
4
Opcrator error
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
Subtotd
this rePrsseltsa
I Notc that data for 3 of thc 4 fuel cyclcswcrc Dotcomplctq so
t
misimum estimatc'
I
I
I
i
I
t
il
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
T
ModiBcation of oPerations
unpredictable and varied
clearly, with a rigidly fixed fuel cycle length and
SONGSto refuel during all of
outageperiods, it would be impossibleto schedule
Edison bas developeda Monte
Marcb and April in everyyear. southern california
commtnication)' Their
Carto simulatiog to iUustratethis point (A Dykes,penonal
(log-normallydistributedwith a
model usestbe probabilitiesof unscheduledoutages
from 60 to 270 days'althoughthe
median of 45 days)and refueting outa$es(ranging
to demorstrate the increasing
longest observed outage has only been 106 days)
of eachfuel cyclewith time' This
uncertainty about the startuPand shutdowndates
of the fuel cycle'it would not
considerationindicatestbat, regardlessof the lengfh
with March and April every
be possibleto schedulea fixed cycleperiod to coincide
year.
of the fuel cycle,as mentioned
However,there someflexibility in the length
into the Monte carlo model'
in the previoussestion,that hasnot beenincorporated
the operatingperiod in order to
contract
ot
extend
to
used
be
could
flexibility
This
savingsof fsb could be
substantial
Furttrermore,
Aprit.
or
March
be offline during
of Marcb and April' Finally' it
achieved even if a unit operated during a Portion
probablyisnotrealistictoexPectapartiorlarleveloflarval.savingseveryyear
it
a partiarlar period regardles of
(unless tbe plant is forced to shutdown during
be
over three or five years' might
averaged
reduction,
target
A
fuel cycte).
flexibility in the fuel cycre (perhaps
achievabreby ma:rimal use of the available
cycle)'
combinedwith a somewhatlonger fuel
rl
Chapter 6
6.13 Costs
strustural changesor
Restricting Plant oPerations would not require any
additions to the Planl but would resultinadditioualcostsiflessPo\r'erwere
generated.
doumtime(for
The additionalcostto scE wouldbe minimizedif scheduted
April' SincesoNGS must
lgfusling and maintenance)occurredduringMarch and
schedulingrefuelingdlring
be down at sometime for refuelingand maintenance,
with
wouldreduceresourcelosses
abundance
the periodof greatestichthyoplankton
in the previoussection'
minimal additional coststo scE. However,as discussed
the fuel
to this alternative,both in termsof len$hening
there are technicalobstacles
refuelingfor any partiailar
cycleand in the uncertaintyof beingable to schedule
calendarperiod.
TherewouldbebotheconomicandenvironmentalcostsifsoNcswereto
operatingduring sritical periods.
avoid
to
order
in
year
each
dap
more
offline
be
at full capacitywheneverpossible;
BecausesoNGS is a baseloadplanl it operates
electricityis needed.Tberefore,
other scE plans are brougbtonline asadditional
that would otherwisebe offline
wheneverSONGSdoesnot oPerate'Powerplans
duringa periodof maximalPower
Elrst be operated.ff soNGS operationsstopped
scE systemEight alsobe a problem;
entire
the
of
capacity
reduced
the
demand,
periods of higbest
do not encomPass
however,the time periods proposedhere
po$rerdemands.
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
T
;
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
l
t
t
I
t
Modifrcatiouof oPcrarions
costs becausemore
Dountime at soNGS would result in additional fuel
at other (fossil'fuel)
expensivealteraative fuels would be neededto generatePower
from rougbly $4 million per
SCE plants. Estimates of tbese additional costsrange
million per week (Eben
week (8. Mecb alas,perconalammwication, 1989) to $7
estimated the replacement
1980), depenrling on the cost of gas; SCE has recently
Full Power Day (EFPD)'
power fuel differential to be $1.1 million Per Effective
to be ofrline during all of
Preliminary estimates of the costs of forcing SONGS
million ('A" Dykes' penonal
Marcb and April suggestan annual cost of $3G40
communication).
if scE had to generate
There would also be additional envirownentalcosts
soNGS being offline' These
power at other power plans in order to makeup for
are located in more populous
ptants have higher emissionsof air pollutants and
ln addition' theseplants have
areas than SONGS,so air quality will be degraded'
additional organismswill be kilted if
open cooling q/stemslike those at SONGS,so
capacitiesin responseto lower
higher-than'normal
at
operated
be
mgst
plants
the
actual additional lossesat otber
power production at soNcs. As noted above,the
specificplant operated' Plantswitb
plan6, and the overall net loss, dependon the
additional lar'ae becausethe seasonal
harbor or canal intakes wourd kill very few
is very different from that at soNGS
locations
these
at
larvae
of
abundance
would kill more lan'ae' Regardlessof
intakes
offshore
witb
Plants
B).
(Appendix
that would be generated at soNGS'
which plant operated to replace electricity
larvae because ther flow rate Per MW'
there would still be a net savings in
generatedatotherplarrtsisonlyone-halftotwo.thirdsthatofSoNGS.
-l
I
I
Cbaptcr6
SONGScouldbe operatedat reducedflow throughoutthe year' However'
a nrrbine
the condensertemPeratureis alreadyaround91oFduring summerwith
Increasingthe AT from 20pFto 30oFwould
back
raise the condensertemPeranreto 101oRwhich would lead to a hrbine
larvae
pressnreof about2.T Hgand reducedplant capacity.Furthermore'mostfish
B)' The
are lessabundantduring most of summer(exceptAugust;seeAppendix
oPerateat
most cost-effectiveschedulefor protecting fish larvae might be to
back pres$re of.23" Hg (fable tr).
(seenextsection)'
reducedflow onlyduringtheperiodsof higbestlarvalabundances
t
t
I
I
I
I
62.1 Potential reduction in losses
passivelyinto the
Sincefish eggSand lanrae are killed when they are brought
SONGS
plant with the cooling water' reducing the volume of water flowing through
et aI' 1980)' Tbe
would result in lower entrainment of fsh eggsand larvae (Marcy
in water flow' As with
savingsthat could be achievedare related to the reduetion
periods of highestlarval
reschedulingPlant operations,reducing the flow rate during
reducing the flow by
abundanceswould result in tbe greatestsavingF' For exampie'
larrrae,of which 161 million
one-third during March would save 541 million fsh
losses >LVo ("AEL
belong to species with estimated adult equivalent
in lar'al frsh losses(table G
species")(TableG5A), which is about zlgzoreduetion
f'
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
reducing
but
March andApril are the monthswith highestlarvalabrrndances,
than a million larvae each
I
the flow in Februaryand May could also savemore
month.l\etgvoreductionthatcouldbeachievedbyreducingflowbyone.thirdin
I
I
sB).
i
Rcplacement of cxisting cmling
I
I
'r
Table 65
SONGS
Potential savingsof fish larvaefrom reducingtlow 8t
A-
and
the present o-P"ratiogscheduleat soNGS'
Data are the total numbcr of lish larvae killed eacblaar under
of
total
the
ls
spcdes
TotarAEL
uy
the number that could be savedby reducingow rhrugb s-oncs
"ne-third.
the lit specieswith cstimatedadult equiwlent losses)17a
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
T TALENTRAII{ED
WITHPRESEI{T
SCIEDUI.E
JN.I
(dd)
SPEqES/
GRoUP
Total
fi.42
Northern AncbovY
31.11
Total minus ancbovY
1950
Total AEL species
17.m
B.
IARVAESAVED WITI{ ONE THIRD l.EssFl,ow
FEB IVIAR APR }YTAY JUN
AUG
SEP OCT NOV DEC
0.48 0.11 025 0.82
3.L2 5.41 4.11 1.05 0.43 039 0.81
0.03 0.06 0.61
359 2.n 0.n 0J0 0.09 020 024
0.18 28
0.66 025 0.08 020 0.15
0.12 0.41 1.81 L.U 058 033 030
055 020 0.06 0.19 0.l:}
o.B 034 1.61 151 0.48 0n 026
030
pcriotls of time'
percent rcduction tD lsFsl lish lossesfrom r=ducing nov by one-tbirdfor ;necrrred
)17a
ls$es
equivaleal
ls the total of the 13 specieswltb estimatedadult
Total AEL spGcrcs
,t
il
I
I
I
I
I
JUL
(x1d)
SPEqES/
Gnour
N{AR
& APR
(2 Mos)
MARCX{
TO }YTAY
(3uos)
FEB
TOT4AY
(4 Mos)
(5uos)
}IAR
TO MAY
& AUG
(4 Mos)
FEB
To lvlAY
& AUG
l:8.gEo
2tn%
tl2Vo
8.6Vo
26%
Totd
t9S%
2L.$Vo
8.4Vo
D2Vo
zLS%
Northern Atr&ory
Total minrs aachovY
{l:7%
nJ%
n8%
262%
u.t%
L8.4Vo
2L2Vo
82Vo
%.4Vo
2A.4Vo
Total AEL sPccies
Cbapter 6
and
MarchandApril couldbe improved to l7Vobyreducingflow betweenFebruary
in Augtlst
May, and to almost 29Voby reducing flow February to May and
which
Reducingflow in Februarywould mostly affect nofthern anchovylarvae'
nrmber of
deminatetbe icbtbyoplanktonduringthat month;althougbthe absolurc
is not
northernanchovylarrraesavedwouldbe substantial(230mi[ies), this species
August
zubstantiallyimPactedby SONGS. In contrast,reducingtbe flow duing
since
would add considerablesavingsfor the speciesmost impactedby SONGS'
(after
specicswith high adult equivalentlosseshavetheir third higbestabundance
soNGS by
March and April) in that month. Reducingthe flow of water througb
thesespecies'
one-third during the four monthswith the highestabundancesof
of the species
March to May and Augfrsl would savemore than400million larvae
by nearly
with high adult equivalentlossesand reducetbe impactsto thesespecies
I
I
t
t
I
l-
25Vo(table 65, Figrre ea).
techniquefor
Reducingtbe flow of water throughsoNGS is a very flexible
have been
preventinglossesbecause,once variable'speedmotors and controls
of months' ([n
installed,flow canbe reducedin virnrallyanymonthor combindion
and any additional
contrast,refueling can only occur fu a singleblock of time'
greaterthe number
periodsofline would be ornemelyexpensive')Obviously'the
the savingSin fish lanae;
of mosths operated at two'thirds flow tbe greater
Tbereis no obviotsbreakhowwer, uroremonthsalsomeangfeatercoststo SCE'
help determinetbe most
point in the sanngFthat couldbe achieved(whicbnight
but there are diminishing
cost-effestivenrmber of monthswith reduced"flow)'
retumsasmoremonthsare added(Figure6a)'
T
I
T
I
I
t
I
I
Modi6cation of
I
T
5
t
4.5
I
I
t
a
.9
.-
I
T
I
I
t
I
-o
<^
v.v
€,
E
o
tt
\1
U
3
o
(6
(o
L
5
10
8
11
AELSpecies
r+-
o
b 1.6
-o
F
z
1.4
t
I
I
I
I
I
1.2
01234s
9
10
11 12
Numberof monthswithreducedflow
dtfterent numPersof months operatecl
Floure 6-4: Number of fish larvae kllled wlth
eq
trrb-tntrosnow.rhe-numo"tir"hlhlin-".::t-il"::g:lt:gJl.?':Sjpttlotl
ff$;gii
adun
i;ffi-sumor;d;;ies*ttnesttmated
![i*l!3i,ll3[,6.'{iet"Jl'"EH:
losses > 1ch'
{
t
Chaptcr6
I
that
Snrdiesby Thomaset 4L (Lg80)and Marcy et al. (1980)have indicated
reduced flow lowered the nrlnerability of tbe otder lifestagesof fisb to entraPmeot'
savedat
However, there are not enougb data to estimate how many fisb nigbt be
might
soNGS. Ebert (1980) suggessthat tbe velocity cap and Fish Return sptem
be killed
not be as effective at lower florv velocities,so that more fisb might actually
different flow
at lower flow rates. However, analysesof entrapment data during
in higher
regimes at SONGS .indicates that lorver flow rates did not result
entrapmentrates (AppendixA of TechnicalReport C)'
be
As with frsh larrrae,entrapment of older life stagescould Potentially
of highest fish
disproportionately reduced by reducing flow during the times
peak abundances
densities; in reality, only anchovies have a limited period of
(Figure 63), so reduced flow could not be timed to coincide with Peak abundances
of older lifestagesof frsh.
reduce nrrbidity'
In theory,-reducingthe flow rate through SONGS should
Ketp Forest community'
thereby reducing impacts on kelp and the San onofre
jet velocity by a sinilar
Reducing floil rate by a third would reduce the diffrser
would also be
amount, and therefore the entrainment near the diffrser Ports
in partiorlar would be
reduced sligbtly. Moreover, less turbid bottom water
plumelike more quickly due
entrained becausethe dischargedwater would become
(List and Koh 1989)' However'
to its reduced momennrm and higher buoyancyflru
mixing with the nanrral crossflow'
since the present diffrrser gives essentially 7a0vo
decreasedennainmentwould be
List and Koh (1989)believe it is unlikely that the
significant.
r
t
I
I
f
l
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Modificatiou of oPcratioos
622 Technical feasibilitY
be achievedin two
Reducing the flow rat; during normal oPeratiolls could
blpass gate
posible ways. The simpler method would be to oPenthe recirculation
recircrrlation of tbe
used during beat treatments (see Appendix A) to allow Partial
could be modified to
6ssling water. Alternatively, the pumP motors and controls
designdoesnot
allow operation at variable speeds. (Unfornrnately, the condenser
would be the simplestway
allorv simply shutting down one of the four PumPs'which
of the condensershell;
to reducethe flow rate, becauseeachPumPservesa section
without coolingwater')
shutting down one pumPwould leavea sec{ionof the shell
t
by increasingthe
Both of tbese methodswould reducethe plant ef6ciency
thereby increasing
condensertemperature abovethe 20"F for which it was designed,
J
I
productionis anrrently
the nsbine back Pressure.Under normal operatioruPower
operating
limited to ?SVowhenthe coolingsystemhas only three circtrlatingPumPs
stezmvelocities inside
(Milter 1989);Power is limited in order to prevent excessive
1989). The plant was desigRed
tbe condenserand subsequentnrbe damage(Miller
that are associatedwith a
for the partianlar steem velocities inside the condenser
result in stnrctural daurageto the
AT=20.F, aDdit is possibtetbat a higher AT could
not be a problem (Lisg penorul
planr However, it now aPPearstbat this would
t
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
communicdion).
is tbe faa that it reduces
A major drawbackto the higher turbine Pressure
condensertemPeratureto 30"F from
ptant efficiency. For exanple, increasingthe
b.yapproximately038' Hg' resulting
20oFwould increasethe turbine back Pressure
generatingcapacity(ust and Koh 1989)'
in a loss of 10 to tzMW (aboutlvo) of
not consider
Southern California Edison engineerscontend tbat List and Koh did
velocity,
that the water-sidefilm coefficient of heat transfer is dependentof water
I
I
I
AT' asd
that at reducedvelocity there would be a much greater effect on the overall
Hg (D'
that the increase in back pressrue would be 0.99" Hg rather tban 038"
t
Chapter 6
a reduction
Pilner, SCE,penonal communication). A plant-specifrcmodel predicts
pilmgl, p*sonal
of 22 lvf\il/unit (Wharton 1989) or n.4 lvf\il/unit (D.
communication), or about 25 Vo,rather than 1S 12 lvf\il/unit.
effect on
In addition, tbe higher nrrbine Pressurecould havean undesirable
This trip is
one of the safetyfeanses for the hrrbine, the high exhaustPressuretrip'
1989)' Normal
anrrently.setat 45" Hg with a pretrip alarm at 35" Hg (Whanon
to 23" Hg'
pressurein the low-pressuresectionof the conderuervaries'between1'7'
rePorts that the
Although List and Kob prediet an incneaseof 038" Hg Wharton
plant thermat model predicts an increase close to 0'8" Hg and Pilmer Qtenonal
commwication) reports an increase of 0.99' H9
wharton states that this is "a
of a plant trip
significant reduction in naryin to trip which increasesthe likelihood
with possible challengeto plant safetysysten"
limitations of this
scE has e.xpressedconcern about the potential hydraulic
As a[rently operate4 the
tecbnique @. Pitner, p*sonal commwdcation).
the cooling water througb
circulation pumps provide 45 ft of head neededto Erove
fL SCE estimatesthat reducing
the rystem; tbe condeosers(water boxes) are at 35
produce only a 20 ft head' so the
the flow by one-third would allow the pumps to
conditions, the qlstem would
water boxes would be at -15 ft head. under these
oPerateunderavacuum(likeasiphon);SCE'sconcernisthatthe.l5ftheadmight
betoolargeavacuumforthesystemtooPerateproperly.Ifthisisthecase'alesser
l
lI
I
lI
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
l
I
i
I
I
t
l
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Modification of oPcations
for e;cartple,a20Voreductionwould produce
redustionin flow might be necessary;
to
a 30 ft head,which is likely to be adequate.It is alsopossiblethat modifications
systen or
the cooling q6tem or operations, sucb as adding an evacuation
operated
periodically running the qntem at full flow, would allow tbe qystemto be
at one-third reduction
problemswitb
Finally, SCE has indicated that there might be unanticipated
experienced
running the pumps at different speeds. These PumPspreviously have
such
problems from torsional vibrations; although solved for culrent speeds'
is apParently
problemsmight resurfaceif the PumPsare usedat a differentspeed' It
would needto
not possibleto anticipatetheseproblem; rather, resonantvibrations
problem) become
be investigatedat different speeds.If vibrations(or someother
maYbe
apparent, various modifications or' at worse' replacementof the PumPs
necessary.
the plant at
In conclusiorl it aPPearsto be technically feasible to oPerate
variable speedmotors
reduced f,ow. Reducing florv througb SONGSby instali"lg
energt demandsof the
on the circglating cooling water pumPswould reduce the
nrbines due to higber
cirorlating PumP$ but also leduce the efficiency of the
per unit (List and Koh 1989)
tgrbine pressures,for an overall net cost of 5 to 7 MW
or l7lvfw per unit @. Pilmelpenorul commtnication').
SONGSat reduced
In addition to thesetechnicalconsideratiors,operating
tbermal standards' soNGS'
flow but full power would require a waiver of current
to 20"F (seaion 3'b3
condensers
operatinglicenseanrrentlylimis the AT acrosstbe
requiresthat the plume not
of the Thermal Plan). In addition,the thermalstandard
j
Chapter 6
discharge
be wanner than 4oF above anbient at a distance of 1000feet from the
the
(Section3.b.4of the Thercral Plan). If the flow rate at SONGSis decreasedbut
po\per level stays the same, water will be discharged at a higher temperature'
tbat
Aszurring tbat water flow was reducedby 33Vo,Listand Koh (1989)calorlated
that the
tbe offshore regulation (4.F at 1000 feet) would not be violated, but
variance
condenser discharge temPeranrrewould increase by ltrF, and a inplant
would be required. At any rate, for this evaluationI have assumedthat the thermal
MRC has
standards are not a consideration It is also worth noting tbat the
to affect the
concluded that the higher dischargetemPeraturewould be unlikely
Coastal
marine environment adversely (Final Report to the California
I
t
I
t
t
I
I
Comrrission).
t
623 Costs
I
I
I
I
I
T
T
I
I
I
using the
The two alternativesto reducingflow while oPeratingat fuU Power'
in their costs'
recirculation blpass gateversusinstalling variable speedmotors, differ
pumping water tbrougb
Opening the blpass gate would not reduce the costs of
The recirctrlation gates
SONGS,which is proportional to the ctrbeof the flow rate'
to be replacedmore
would erode considerablyif usedin this manner,so would have
be dischargedinto the
frequently (at additional cosS). Finally, wafin water would
increasethe mortality of
intake embayment (as in a heat treatment), whicb might
older life stagesof frsh.
motors were operating at a
In contrast"pumping costswould be lower if the
by one'third would reduce
lower speed. Reducingthe flow rate through SONGS
savingof 4'7 MW
pumping pou/er demand by a factor of 3.4, for an electric Power
i
t
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
,l
I
I
I
I
I
I
Modification of oPcratioas
involve a considerable
(List and Koh 1989). Rerofining the pump motors would
for the circulating water
capital cost becausethe existing constant speed motors
and controls' List and
pumpswould have to be replacedwitb variable qpeedmotors
million per unit' based on their
Kob (1989) estinate this cost to be more than $3
yariable speedmotors and controls for
recent experiencewith similar horsepower
could !s higher, possiblyby
San Diego METRO. SCE has indicated that the costs
(1989)alsopoints out ttrat tbere
an order of magninrde(wharton 1989). wharton
the circulating system (e'g.'
are numerous uncertainties involved with modifyrng
reducedconditionsthat would
possiblevibration problemsin tbe PumPsat these
significant operational concerlrs
require pump replacement) that could become
and/or increasesin the proposedcapitalcosts'
pump motors' there would be an
Beyond the capital costsof retrofitting the
of the plant due to the higher nrrbine
ongorngcost from tbe reducedpower outPut
that' with the water flow rate reduced
back pressures.List and Kob (1989)'estimate
increasedby 10"F' tbe operating
by 33[oand tbe condenserdischargetemPerature
tvtz lvf\il; tbe electrical demand for
by
reduced
be
would
unit
each
of
capacity
of
lower tban at PresenEfor a net loss
each set of pumps would be 4-5 lvfw
Koh
unit (List and Koh 1989)' List and
generatingcapacityof about 5 to 7 MW per
enerry' computed using the current
(1989) estimated that the cost of the lost
and an estimated load faetor of
$0.0451KwH
of
cost
enersl
purcbased
averaged
that the
year per unit' [rivharton(1989)suggests
million
Per
$1.G22
be
Svvo,would
a levelized
likely be bigher by a factor of'2 on
adual replacement Porrer cost wiu
for soNGS.UniS 2 and3 rs 90vabased
basis,and that the actualprojectedcapacity
upon a two'Yearfuel cYcle']
q
Chapter 6
wouldbe
SCE'spreliminaryanalpisindicatedthat the net Powerredustion
units
greaterthanList andKoh'sestimate'about54'8tYf\il' for the two
considerably
pou/er
combined. Using SCEs 1991 projection of the cost of replacement
flow
(S0.048IKWHannualizedcostof burninggas),the net annualcostof reducing
million for both
for the four months(Febnraryto May) hasbeenestimatedto be $5
cost has a
nnits combined @. Pilmer, pmonal commnicAion)' This annual
presentvalueof $25-30millis*
wouldresult
In additionto frnancialcosts,the reducedefficiencyof SONGS
for the lower
in someenvironmentalcosB. It is likely that scE wouldcompensate
ptants' As noted in
output of Units 2 znd3 by increasedoperationof fossil fuel
of air poltutantsandare
fossilfuel plantshavehigherernissions
section6.13,SCE',s
quality in tbe SouthCoast
located in more populousareasthan SONGS,so air
that would needto be
Basinwill be degraded;however,the amountof electricity
be small' Some
generatedis quite small,so the environmentalimpactswould also
if they are openatedto
larvaenight be killed at po$/erplans with offsboreintakes
relative to the savingSat
replace SONGS'enerry; however,this would be Uivial
yield only a L'25Voredustionin
SONGS,since a33zoreduetionin flow ratewould
I
I
l'
I
I
I
I
I
l'
I
l"
I
I
po\peroutPuL
I
63CombinedApproach:ReschedulingandReducingFlow
I
of frshlanraeand minimal
A compromisebetweenthe ma:dmumprotection
I
disruptionofplantoperationswouldbetocombinereschedulingPlantoperations
I
the flow rate by 33Voin February'
witb reducingflow rates. For example,reducing
of fisb larrraekilIed by nearly500
May and Augustwould reducethe total number
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Modifrcation of oPcrations
during March and
million individuals, or l}vo. If Units 2 and 3 did not oPerate
Using these two
April, 25 bilIio n (50Vo) fewer fisb larvae would be kitled'
reducingthe overall
techniquestogetherwould savea total of 3 billion fish larvae'
would substantiallyreduce
impact of the unia 2 and3 by 60vo. This combination
losses,reducinglarval
the impact of soNGS on specieswith high adult equivalent
137million l8'7Vo]from
lossesby 57Vo(827 milli on l48.6Volfrom berngoffiine and
having SONGS offline in
reducing the flow). (Note that tbe savingsachievedby
power plants with
March and April would be considerablylower if SCE oPerates
offshoreintakesto producethe replacementpower')
CombiningthesetechniqueswouldalsobebeneficialifUnit2alternated
occurif they operatedon
being offline during March and April with Unit 3, as could
larval fish lossescould be
a 24-month fuel cycle. For example,each year the
April' with an additional
reduced by Z|Voin the unit that was offline in March and
during this time' and
g.SVosavings
achievedby reducingflow rate in the other plant
February'May and August'for a
ag.gfosavingsfrom reducingflow in both plantsin
total savingsof 44Vo(Tables6-5 and 6'6)'
add some certainty to the
Finatly, combining these trpo tecbniqueswould
for SONGS' If SONGS cannot be
uBcertainty of schedulingrefueling periods
everyMarch and APril" reduced flow
offline for normal refueling and maintenance
of larvae are saved'sincethe flow
could be used to insure that a minimum number
could be reducedat will'
fr
I
I
Chapter6
Table 5'6
different llow schedules
Reduction in ichthyoplantcton entrainment under
and llow reduction"
A Total ichthYoPlanldon
MoNn$wrff
No Fl,ow
FtsB,
Momrswmr
6lVoFt-ow
Nooe
Fcbto MaY
NONE
OVo
26%
MAR
& APR
lvlAR
TdAR.
& APR
lvlA&
AP&
& AUG
n%
49Eo
8%
55Vo
47Vo
s%
7t%
&%
Iasses ) l9o'
B. Specieswith estimatedAdult Equivalent
MoNrHswm{ No FI,ow
MoNTI$wml
6l%oFtow
Noae
Fcb to MaY
NONE
wb
a%
NIAIR
' 28%
42Vo
MAR
& ADR.
FEB'
tYlA&
& APR
lYlA&
APR,
& Auo
48Vo
55%
59%
v%
59qo
65Vo
l'
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
Modifrcation of oPcrations
6.4 Modification of Heat TreatmentProcedures
Heat
Biofouling in the cooliqg s,6tem is controlled by heat treatments'
(about every
6.eatmentsare done wben flow througb the systembecomesrestricted
during heat
6 to 8 weets). The power production of the plant is reduced to SAVo
treatmentsto
treatments (Miller 1989),and this is costly. However, the use of heat
asd thrs
eliminate biofoulers gfeatly reduces the need for chlorine treatmenS
operational
reducesthe a:nount of chlorine dischargedinto the ocean. Tbe current
twoprocedure at SONGS during heat treatments is to recirsglate approximately
allow the water
thirds of the normal dischargeflow back through the condenserto
about an hour'
to heat up to 150"F (41€). The temperatureis maintainedfor
When the water is beated,tbe flow is reversedto cleanout the intake systert.
fsh that were
The heat treatment procedure kills a substantialnumber of
generally tbe largest
entrapped but residing in the screenwells.These fish are
qPecies,and comprise
individuals entrapped,include g1anyeconomicallyimportant
are killed becatse' for
20Vo ofthe biomassof all fish killed by SONGS' The fisb
Systembefore the rise in
some reason, they do Bot move into tbe Fish Renrn
kitled during heat treatments
temperanre kills them. Initially, many more fisb wpre
however' the heat treatment
becausetbe temperanrre was increasedtoo quickly;
is now increasedslowly' and
procedureshave been modified so that the temperature
into the FRS'
ail of the fish shouldhavesufEcientwa:ning to move
proceduresmight reducethe
Severalmodifrcatioruof the current operating
it sbould be noted that scE s
loss of fish during heat treatments; however,
-t
I
Chapter6
to minimizethe mortalityof frshduringheat
havealreadybeendesigned
procedures
procedureswould
treatments;it is nnlikely that any further modificationsto'the
duringheat
havemucheffecton losses.The temperatureis alreadyraisedgfadually
build-upmight
treatmen6,but it is possibtethat an evenEore gradualte6Peranre
andinto the collecdonarea;the
be more effectiveat drivingfish out of screenwells
might
of this procedurecouldeasilybe tested. In addition,fish losses
effecriveness
were emptiedfor a
be reducedif the collectionarea of the Fish Return System
sincesome
longerperiod of time duringthe warm'upphaseof the heat treatment's'
of this Potentialprocedural
frsh toleratefairly high temperanrres;the effectiveness
frsh miglt be
changecould alsobe testedeasily. Finally, survivorshipof diverted
for a long enough
enhancedby insuring'thatwater is run throughthe renrrn sluice
periodof time.
heat reatment
Althouglr these possible modifrcationsof the culrent
gtd@ the fhb into
procedureshouldbe teste4 the primaryproblemseentsto be
effect on frsh guidance'
the FRS. These proceduralcbangeswould have little
for drivingand/or attractingfrshinto the collection
potentianyfeasiblemecrranisms
in sections33'1 and333'
havebeendiseussed
are4 sonicdevicesandligbt systems,
l
l"
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SECTIONI
LITERATURE CITED
impacts
Ambrose, RF. 19g6. An evaluation.ofalternative tecbniquesfor mitigating
the Marine
of tbe San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Report to
Review Committee. 168PP.
Anjal, M. and MA
dischargeson
Khan- 1986.. Effects of coal'fired thermal Po\rterplant
agriarltural soil and crop plants. EnvironmentalResearch39:
4054L7.
for chromate
Anderson, NJ., B.A Bolto and L Pawlowski. 1984. A method
Waste
removal from cooling tower blou'down water. Nucles and Chemical
M attagmteru5:.7?S'L29.
of the
Andrew, FJ., LR. Kersey, and P.C. Jobnson. 1955. An investigation
Salmon
problem of guiding downsUeagmigrant salmonat dams' Int' Pacific
Fish.CommBull. VIU,PP.4?.
Armbruster, J.A and c.L Mulfi.
1984. Reqponseof corn and soybeansto soil rn'
B"n$'?az'
foliar-appliedsaltsof coolingtower origin. J. EnviroruawL
Goodyear,w. Van winkle
Barnthouse,LW., J. Borema& s.w. christensen,cP.
courtroom: The Hudson
and D.S. Vaugban. 1984.Populationbiolory in the
River Controversy.EioScience34: 14-19'
rl
Sccion I Uteraturc Citcd
on tbe
Bates,D.W. and J.C. VanDerWalder. 1969. Exploratoryexperiments
jets' U'S' Bureauof
deflectionof juvenilesrlmonby meansof'waterandair
cial Fisheries,FresbwaterandEsnrarineResearchProgran'
at tbe
of fish impingement
Bendq R.S.,M. Johq andJ. Gulvas. 1975.Comparison
and closedcyclegeeling'
PelisadesNuclearPowerPlant for once-througb
Proc IndiattaAcd- Sca85:155-160'
on the effects
Bibko, P.N.,L Wirtenan,andP.E.Kueser. Lg72.Preliminarystudies
behaviorof the
of air bubblesaod intenseillumination on the swimming
cepedianttm)'
striped bass(Moronesmtilis)and the ginllrdshad (Dorosoma
Effects' Johns'
Third Annual Syrrposiumon Entrainmentand Entrapment
HopkinsUniversity,Baltimore,Maryland'March t972'
Birchall,G-L
Efihrcntutd
tgIg. conuol of foulingwithin coolingwatersystems.
Jounzal19:571'578'
Watq Treannent
Blanchar4 FJ!
sJ. Gonsior and DL
Hopkins'
1987'
2'2-dibromo'3'
in na$ral waters:
nitrilopropionamide (DBNPA) ctremical degradation
pathwaln' Wal Res
etgerimentalevaluationand modelingof competitive
801-807.
a natural snowfalland coolingto\iler
Campistron,B. Lg75. Interactionbetween
plume:AnexperimentalsftdywithamillimetricDopplerradar'
EnvironmentZli 1375'1383
Atmospheric
I
I
l"
I
I
lI
I
l=
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section I Literatrue Citcd
Capano, G. and W.E. Bradley. Lg74. Acoustical impact of cooling towers' J'
536.
Acottst.SocAnt-55(Supp1.):
Central Electric Researchl-aboratories. L975. Chlorination of gssling water: A
review of literanre on the effects of chlorine on aquatic organisms.
LaboratoryMemorandumNo. RD&/M / 496,22pp.
ConsolidatedEdison Co. (CEC). Lg7g. Selectionof the preferred closedcycle
coolingsystemat Indian Point Unit No. 3, Consol.Edison Co. of New York
EIS NUREG-0574,Dec 1979.
Dorn, P.B. and J.T. Johnsor\ eds. 1981. Advancedintake technologt for power
plant cooling water q6telns.
Proc. Workshop of Adnaqced Intake
Technolory,SanDiego,CA ?2'24Apnt' 1981(NTIS)' 307pp'
Ebert" C.D. 1980. Shottld desi7l changa be made in the cooling systemat the San
Orcfre Nucles Gmerating Station? MS Thesis, University of Califomia'
Berkeley,M2y23,1980.59 PP.
tbe
Eco-SystemsManagement (Eco-M). 1987. Addendum to slpoPtic stgdies of
plume of soNGS Units 2 and3. Report submittedto the MRC, September
1987.
of SONGS'
Eco-M. 19g8. Disnrrbancesof the Flow-Field by the Cooling System
Final Report to the Marine ReviewCommittee,Vol' II-2, Sec'3'
Sccioa I Utcrature Citcd
Edmonds, P.R, Hjt
Roffman and R.C. Maxwell. t975.
Some terrestrial
considerationsassociatedwith gssling-tow€rsJ6temsfor electric power
generatior-In: Qs6lingTowerEnvironment't974. U.S.EnergyResearch
Series;CONF 740302'
andDevelopmentAdministration'ERDA Symposigm
PP.393407.
as
Edwards,SJ.,P.M. McGroddy,D. UsPi andLDorn 1981a Finemeshscreens
systemfor marinefish larvae. ln:, Advancedintalce
an impingement-release
P.B.Dorn andJ'T' Johnson'
technologt
for powu plant cootkgwatersystems.
eds. Proc.Workshopof AdvancedTechnolory,SanDiego,U' 22-24April'
1981(NTIS). PP.t28'137.
Edwards,SJ., Rl. Wymandand P. Dorn
1981b. Evaluationof Porousdike
strus$resfor narine larvalfrshexclusion In: Advancd intale technologfor
powerptut coolingwater systemsP.B. Dorn and J'T' Johnson'eds' Proc'
workshop of AdvancedTechnolog, san Diego, cA
22'24 April' 1981
(NTIS).w.T2'83of nuclearpower. IJwis hrblishers'
Eichhola G.G. 1985. EnvironnentalasPests
Inc. ChelseaMichigan 683PP'
of PonrerPlant
Electric power ResearchInstinrte(EPRI). Lg7g.cbemicaleffects
E.A-1072'
cooling waters: An AnnotatedBibliography1979'EPRI
intake technologies
Electric power ResearchInstitute (EPRI). 19g4. Advanced
InstituteReportcs-3644,Sept1984'
snrdy.ElectricPowerResearch
I
I
l-
I
I
l"
I
I
l'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sccrion I Literaturc Citcd
Elestric Power ResearchInstitute (EPRI). 1989.
Field testing of behavioral
barien for fish exclusion at cooling-waterintake systens. Electric Power
ResearchInstitute Report GS-6246,Marcb 1989.
Elwood,J.W.,JJ. Beauchanpand C.P.Allen 1980. Chromiumlevelsin fish from a
lake chronically contaninated with chromatesfrom cooling towers. Intern J.
Environmental Studia 14: 289'298.
Engle, R.E., G.L Malzer and F.G. Bergsrud. 1985. Salinecoolingtower water for
irrigation in Minnesota: I. Crop and soil effecs. J. Environ OuaL t4z 32-36'
Fischer,H 8., J. Imberger,EJ. List, R.C.Y. Koh and N-H. Brooks' L979' Miing in
intandand coastalwaters.Chapter10. AcademicPress,New Yorlq NY. pp'
39C430.
Francis,BA and C.R. Cunis. Lg7g. Effect of simulatedsalinecoolingtower drift
on tree foliage. Phyopathologt69: 349-353'
17,
Gardner, M. Testinony at California Coastal Com4ission meeting, February
1981.TransctiPtPagen-28.
wiley & sons, New
Graves,H.'W., Jr. Lg|g. Nuclear Fuel Management. John
York- 327 PP.
R. Howarth, B. Moore, III and cJ. voorosmarty. 1978'
zoDle'
Environmental impacts of industrial energt systemson the coastal
Hall, c.as.,
Ann Rev.Energ 3:395475.
a
I
T
I
I
protection techniques:
Halmes, G.T. and P-H. Patrick 1985' Alternative fisb
I
83't2
EP
ESEERCO
additional studieswitb pneumaticair deterrents.
I
extension.
I
submersibleuaveling
Hap, S.G. 1988. Low fish guidancewith a ngbine intake
Fishprotection
screendueto avoidancebehavior:A casestudy.Proceedings:
I
power Plants.Electric PowerResearchInstinrte
at steantand hydroelectric
l=
W' +26 to 4'52'
ReportCS/ES/AP-5663'SR'
I
effectsof aerosoldrift
Ecological
tg76'
Rea
J-{and
Rainiere
LC
Hindawi,IJ.,
series,EPA-600/3'7G
I
from a saltwatercoolingqEtem. EcologicalResearcb
078,JulY,L976.
I
Hall, Jr., andRP MorganII' eds'
Hocutl cJ[, JR. Stagffer,Jr, J.E.Edinger,Lw.
I
1980.PorlerPlans:Effectsonfishandshellfishbehavior.AcademicPress,
I
NewYorlc 346W'
I
Hofmann,}v.c,M.M.IkrpiscakandP.G.Bartels.lgST.Responseofcottoq
salt in an arid environrnenLJ'
auatfq and cantatouPeto foliar-deposited
I
Environ OwL 16:267'272'
I
Holararth,G.,R.G.BalmerandLSoni.lg&4aThefateofchlorinein
I
Scction I Literature Citcd
Hason, cII., J.R. White and H.W. U.
En.
Entrapment and impingement of
Marine Fisheries
fisbesby power plant cooling-waterintakes: An overview'
Review39:7-t7.
recirculatingtorilers:Fieldrezults'WatqRes'18:1429-1435'
I
t
I
t
Secion I Literaturc Gted
of chlorine and
Holavarth, G, R.G. Balmer and L Soni. 1984b. Tbe fate
flashoff' Water
cbloramines in cooling towers: Hen4t's Law constantsfor
Res.18: t4Ll'Mn.
ID
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
screeningability of a
Ketschke,B. A 1981a Field and laboratory evaluationof the
plan cooling watq
porous dike. In: Advurced htakc technologtfor power
of Advanced
systems,P.B. Dorn and J.T. Johnson'eds. Proc. Workshop
Technolos,SanDiego,cAz2-24Apri1,1981(NTIS).pp.84-90.
intake' In:
1981b. Hydrautic'performanceof a Porous dike
systerns'P'B' Dorn
Advstced ir1al<etechnologtfor powerplant coolingwater
SanDiego,
and J.T. Johnson,eds. proc. Workshopof AdvancedTechnolory,
Ketscbke, B. A
CA ?2-24April, 1981(NTIS)' pp'91-99'
Hydraulic modeling
Koh, R.C.Y., N.H. Brooks,EJ. ust and EJ. wolanski. tg74'
PolrterPlant' Final
of thermal oudall difftrsen for the San Onofre Nuclear
Report to SouthernCalifornia Edison Co' 168pp'
and T'T' Frankenberg' t976'
Kraner, M.L, lvtE. Snith, MJ. Butler, D.E. Seymour
of the Air Pollwion control
cooling towers and the environmenl Joumal
.4ssociation26: 582'5&a
Physicaland hydraulic descriptionof
Lawler, Manrslcyand Sketly Engineers' LgTg'
generatingstationintakes.ReporttoSouthernCaliforniaEdison.
Intake Technologt Review' Repon
I-awler, Matuslcyand skelly Engineers. 1982.
R & D Series82.RD.164.
submittedto SouthernCaliforniaEdisonco.,
a
Sccioo I Litcrature Citcd
of pneumatic
I-awler,Matuskyand SkellyEngineen. 1984. Biologicalevaluation
HudsonGas
air gunsat the DanskammerPoint intake. Report to Central
andElectricCorP,August1984.
onofre cooling
usL EJ. and R.c.Y. Koh. 1989. Evaluationof alternativeSan
pp'
waterdischarges.Reportto southerncatifornia Edisonco' 21
Personal
1gg0. hrblic service Elestric and Gas company.
t982'
conununication.Citedin lawler, Manrslsyurd SkellyEngineers
I-ondon, M.
and behavioral
M-"y, 8.C., Jr., V.R. Kranz and R.P. Bar. 1980. Ecological
In:
characteristicsof fish eggsand young inlluencingtheir entrainment'
Hocutl J'R'
Power Plants: Effectsof fuh and shellfsh behavior' C'H'
II, eds. Academic
Stauffer,Jr., J.E. Edinger,Lw. Hall, Jr., R.P Morgan
Press"NewYork PP-29:74.
the effectsof the san
Marine Review committee (MRC). 1980. Predictionsof
Part I:
onofre Nuclear Generating station and Recomnendations'
Predistionsand Rationale. Report to the california
Recommendations,
CoastalConmission'MRC Document8e04(I)'
Daley and W.C Micheletti.
Matouseh J.A., A.w. Wells, P"M. Mccroddy, M.w.
devicesat a Po\ilerplant
1988. Biologicalevaluationof behavioralbarrier
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
t
I
intakelocatedontheHudsonRiver.Proceedings:Fishproteaiondsteafn
Report
I
powerptants. Electric PowerResearchInstinrte
and trydroelectric
CSIESlAe'5663-SR'PP' 4'26to +52'
I
I
Scction I Literaturc Cited
and
McCune,D.C., D.H. Silberman,RH. Mandi, LH. Weinsteiq P.C'Freudenthal
sesling
P*d Giardina ugn. studies on the effectsof saline aerosolss1
27:
to\rer orign on Plan6. Jowul of the Air Po}furtonControt '4ssociotion
319-324.
McGroddy, P.M, S. Petrich and I*B. I:rson
1981. Fouling and clogging
the marine
evaluation of fine-mesb screens for offshore intakes in
water
environnenl .In: Advutced intakc technologtfor powerplan cooling
I
I
il
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
l
of Advanced
systems.P.B. Dorn and J.T. Jobnson'eds. Proc. Workshop
'fechnolog,SanDiego,CA?2-24Apnt'1981(NTIS)'pp's'ZL'
to divert sockeye
McKinley, R.S.and P.H. Patrick 1988.Use of behaviouralstimuli
columbia
salmon smolts at the seton Hydro-electric Station' Britisb
Power Plants'
Proceedings: Fish Proteaion at steam attd Hydroelearic
Pp' 4-53 to
Elestric power ResearcbInstinrte Report CS/EA/AP'5663'SR.
+63.
of tbreesonicdevices
McKinley,RS, PJI. PatrickandY. Mussali. 1987.Influence
on
plsggsdingsof the conference
on fish behavioru.In: waterpowet'r7.
hydropower.Portland,Oregon'AugustlgaL,1987.B.w.Glowes,ed.Am.
Soc.Civil Eng. PP.542-560'
proteaion at steon and hydroelearic
Micheletti, W.C, ed. 1988. Procedings: Fbh
CS/EA/AP-5663power Plutts. Electric Power ResearchInstitute Report
SR.
Scaion I Literature Cited
1989. Questionsregardingcooliqgs)Fte6liat SONGS' Personal
communicationfrom RL Miuer, PAX 285L2,GO 3, 3rd Floor, southern
Miller, RL
CaliforniaEdisonCo.
andeffectson
for experimentation
, Moser,B. tg75. Airborneseasalg Techniques
vegetation. Iz: Cooling-TowerEnvironment- t974. U'S' Energ Research
andDevelopmentAdministration'ERDA SlmposiumSeries;CONF-740302'
pP.353-369.
yield and
Mulchi, C.L and J.A Armbruster. tg15. Effectsof salt sPrayson the
'
nutrientbalanceof corn and soybeans./n: Cooling'TowerEnvironment
ERDA
Lg74. U.S. Enerry Researchand DevelopmentAdministration'
Series;CONF-740302'pp' 379'392'
Symposium
and soybeansto
Mulchr, C.L and J-A. Armbruster. 1981. Responseof corn
J' Environ'
simulatedsalineaerosoldrift from brackishwatercoolingtowers'
Qual.10:541'547.
casesnrdyof the impact
Mulchr,cJ- andJJq.Armbruster. 19&2.ChalkPoinU A
J' Environ
of brackishwater cootingtourerson an agriarlnrralenvironment'
AwL LtzZL2220.
of Marylandtobaccoto saline
Mulchl CJ- and J-d Armbruster. 1983. Response
J. Environ QtnL 12:
aerosolemissionsfrom brackishwater coolingtowers.
L227-t32.
I
I
l'
I
I
I
I
I
l"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Section I Utcraturc Cled
Mussalli, Y.G., J. \flil[iams and J. Hockman. 1981. Engineeringevaluationof a
dual-flow fine-mesb travqlliag screen In: Advancedintakc teclualog for
powerplaru coolingwater systems.Proc. Workshop of AdvancedTechnologt'
SanDiego,CA 22'24April 1981.(NTIS). pp. 169-183'
Neiwiadomshi,M. and ILE. Haman 1984. The rainfall enhancementby washoutof
sesling to\iler plumes: A numerical experiment.Atmospheic Environment
7822483-2489.
Norris, ILS., C.R. Schilt and ICL Marten. 1988. Effects of Bolt Technologt
Corporation pnegmatic sound sources on Northern Anchovy (Engraiis
mordu) and White Croaker (Gettyonemustineattts). Report to Southern
California EdisonCo. 63 PP.
Npnn, D.E. 1989. Memo to J.B. Palmerre: Marine ReviewComsritteemitigating
Co',
conceptdeatingwith SONGSfuel cycles. SouthernCalifornia Edison
July 21, 1989.
of cooling
Parkhurst,B.R. and H*{. Md-ain" 1978.An environmentalassessment
reservoin. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Environmental Science
DivisioruPubl.No. 1$2.
of tobaccoto
Parr, P.D., F.G. Taylor, Jr. and JJ. Beauchamp. t976- Sensitivity
Atmospheic
chromium from mechanical draft cooling tower drift.
Environmeil tA:427423.
SccrioaI Literature Citcd
to
1982a. Responsesof gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepdiowm)
Research
different flash charasteristics of suobe light. Ontario Hydro
Patric.lq P.H.
Division, Toronto, Canada Report No. 82-31&K
I
ontario Hydro
Patrich P.H. 1982b. Responsesof fish to air bubble barrien.
ResearchDivision, Toronto, canada, Report No.82-362'IC
Patriclq PJI., R.S. McKinley and W.C Micheletti.
I
I
I
1988'
Field testing of
- Test Site 1 '
behavioural barriers for cooling water intake structures
Fish
Pickering Nuclear Generating Station 1985/86' Procegdings:
Elestric Porrer
Protection at Steam and Hydroelectric Power Plants'
to
ResearchInstinrteReport CS/EA/AP-5663'SR. PP.4-13
AnE'
of a strobelight eel
Patrick,PJI., R.W. Sheehan'andB' Sim' llgn. Effectiveness
94: 269-2n.
exclusionscheme.Hydrobiologia
of fish to lighr Advancedintake
patrick, p.H. and GL Vascotto. 1981.Response
of worlshop
technoloSlfor powerplant coolingwater systems'Proceedings
IslandHotel, sanDiego,catif' APril ?2'U' 1981'
beld at Sheraton-Harbor
attracts
puckett ICJ. and JJ. Anderson 1988. conditions under which ligbt
power
hydroelearic
juvenilesalmon-Proceedings:Fbhproteaionat steamotd
pP'
plants.Electric PowerResearchInstinrteReport CS/EA/AP-5663-SR
4-65to +73TechnicalReport' Memo to R'
Reitzel, J. 1988. cornmentsof draft Mitigation
JulY31,1988'
Ambrose,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
Section I Litcraturc Cired
2A7:
Repolds , JZ. 1980.Powerplant gsetingsysteu$: Policyalternatives' Science
367-372.
1978. Engineering considerationsin the use qf artificial filter'
Paper presented at wortsboP on larttal exclusion qysteu$ for power plant
Richards, R.T.
sselingwater intakes,SanDiego,CA February1978'
Rochow,JJ. 1978. Measurementsand vegetationalimpact of chemicaldrift from
mechanicaldraft coolingtowers. EnvironmentalScimceand Technolog L2:
1379-1383.
on
Roffman, A and H. Roffman. Lg73. Effects of salt water cooling tower drift
I
I
I
I
I
I
,l
I
I
I
water bodiesand soil. Water,Ain and SoilPollwionl:457471'
power
Romeril, M.G. and M.H. Davis. 1976. Trace metal levels in eels groivn in
stationcoolingwater. Aryaanture 8: 139-149'
porous dike intake
Schrader,B.P. and BA Ketschke. 1978. Biological asPectsof
for powu plant coolingwdq iftalces'
stnrcnres. Irt: Lm,at acJusionsystems
Isboratory'
R.K Sharma and J3. Palmer, eds. Argonne National
NUREG/CP-002;AI'IL/ES-66' PP' 51-63'
at intake qrutems.J'
schuler, VJ. and LE. I-arson. 1975.Improved fuh protection
. EnvirownentalEngineeringDivbion,Proe Americst societyof civil Engineen
101:897-910.
a
Sectioa I Uterature Citcd
Fotttth Nuional
Sharma R.IC 1978. Perspectiveson fish impingemenl In:
E-A'
Worlrshopon Entraiwney atd Impingematt. LD. Jensen' ed'
(a divisionof EcologicalAnalyss,Inc.). PP.351-356'
communications
lossesfrom
smitb, EJ. and J.It Anderson. 1984. Attempts to alleviate fish
and New York, using acoustics' North
AllegbenyResewoir,Pennsylvania
4: 30s307.
AmericanJournalof FisheriesManagement
Onohe Nuclear
SouthernCalifornia Edison (SCE). t9T3a- The proposedSan
S' Cal
GeneratingStation,Units 2 and3, DocketNos' 5G361and 5U362'
MarchL973'
EdisonCo.,EIS-CA-73-0518-F,
I
I
I
I
I
l"
t
I
t
Unit 1' S' ed
SoutheruCaliforniaEdison(SCE). 1973b. Operationof SONGS
Edison,EIS'CA'73'0844-D,L973'
and an analysisof
SoutbernCalifornia Edison(SCE)' L974' Velocity cap snrdies
Edison Company'
bacldtting for SanOnofre, Unit 1' Southern California
Rosemea4California 28P'
of San Onofre Nlclear
Southern California Edison (SCE). 1981. Operation
and 5s36a s' cat
GeneratingStation,units 2 and3, Docket Nos' 5G'361
EdisonCo, EIS NUREG4490,April 1981'
Corporation' 1978' Thermalcontrol costfadors'
Stoneand WebsterEngineerir.rg
coolingsJFtelns'submittedto the
report on the capitalcostof closed-cycle
EPA (Utilrty WaterAct GrouP)'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'l
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
Scction I Etcraturc Cited
plant cooling
Strandberg,H.V. tg74. A higb caPacitysandfilter for thermal Pou'er
the secon'd
water intakes. Part & Design concePt. In: Procedings of
'Electric
ed'
Jenseq
LD'
screening.
intal<c
u1d
entrainment
on
worlcshop
PowerResearchInstinrteResearchProjectRP49 Report 15' PP'335-343'
Strpt ', R.C. and R.IL Sharma Dn.
Surveyof fish impingementat Power plants
ARGONNE
in the united states. vol. Itr. Esnrariesand coastal waters.
National l-aboratory,Ill. 310PP.
evaluations
Taft, E.P.,J.IC Downing and C.W. Sullivan. 1988. Laboratoryand freld
Snrdy update'
of fish protection sj|stemsfor use at hydroelec'tricplanS:
plants' EleAric
Proceedings: Fishprotectionat steamand hydroeleAricpower
4-94'
PowerResearchInstitute Report CS/EA/AP-5663-SR.pp-at'7ato
Talbot, JJ.
tower salt
lg7g. A review of potential biological impactsof cooling
drift. AtmosphericEnvironment L3i395405'
1975' Environmental
Taylor, F.G", Jr, LtrL Mann, R.C Datrlman and FL Miller.
In: Cooling Toq'er
effects of chromium and zinc in cooling-water drift'
Ewironment
-
1974.
u.s,
Energr Researcb and Development
Administration, ERDA SyrrposiumSeries;coNF
40302' pp' 408a26'
Interception and retention of
Taylor, F.G., Jr., P-D. Parr and F: Ball' 1980'
diameter) bY vegetation'
simulated cooling ton'er drift (10e800 um
AtmosPheicEnvironmentt4: L9'25'
t
Scction I Uterature Cited
of coolingtowerdrift in
Taylor,F.G.,J*4-WattsandP.D.Parr. 1983.Seasonality
gz
vegetationat oRGDP. Ewirotnten Inernational t49-t5L
collectedfrom a
To12sInstruments,Inc. 1978.Initial and ocendedsurvivalof fish
Indian Point
fine mesh continuouslyoperating traveling screen at the
Preparedfor
GeneratingStationfor theperiod15Jgne 'DDecember L977'
ConsolidatedEdisonCompanyof NewYorh Inc'
Kolok. 1980.The
Thomas,G.L, R.E. Thorne,w.c. Acker,T.B. stables,andA.s"
in reducing fish
effectivenessof z velocity caP and decreasedflow
Institute' Report
entrapment.university of washingtonFisheriesResearch
to SouthernCaliforniaEdison
statementrelatedto
u.s. Atomic Enerry connission 19?3a Final Environmental
Unit f' Sacramento
operationof RanchoSecoNuclearGeneratingStation
Municipalutilrty Distrist DocketNo. 500312.EIS-CA-73-0446'
relatedto
stateErent
u.s. Atomic Energycommission 1973b.Finat environmental
Station Unit t' Southern
operation of San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Gas andElectric company'
california Edisoncompanyand the san Diego
DocketNo. 5&206' EI$CA-73-1688'F'
environmentalstatementrelatedto
U.S.Atomic Energl Commission-t973c Final
station units 2 zrd 3'
the proposed san onofre Nuclear Generating
the SanDiego Gas and Electric
SouthernCaliforniaEdisonCompanyand
Co:::arry.DocketNos.5&361and5c362.EIs-cA.73.0518-F.
t
I
l.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
';
I
t
I
I
l
t
,t
.l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Scction I Utcraturc Citcd
Closed
U.S. Nuctear Regulatory Commission- tg|g. Selectionof the Preferred
Clcle Cooling Sptem at Indian Point Unit No. 3, Consolidated Edison
.Company of New Yorh Inc. Power Autbority of the State of New York'
Docket No.5S286. Report NumberNUREG'0574'
Wharton, M.A 1989. Review commentson Evaluation of Alternative San Onofre
D'F'
cooling water Discharges'Report, dated July 17, 1989. Memo to
Pilmer, SouthernCaliforniaEdisonCo.,July 28' 1989'
Wiedenfield,RP., LR. Hossnerand E.L McWilliams. tg78. Effectsof evaporative
salt water cooling towers on salt drift and salt deposition on surrounding
soils.J. Enviroi QuaLT:293'298.
blpass
williams, J.G., M.H. Gesseland D.R. Chambers. 1988. Juvenilesalmonid
River'
system research at Bonneville Second Powerhouse, Columbia
Electric
Proceedings: FiShproteaion at stean and hydroeleAticpowerplutts'
to 1'54'
PowerResearchInstinrteReport cslEA/AP-5663-SR. pp. 141
power station' Proc'
Weight, R. 1958. Ocean cooling water systemfor 800 MW
Arn. Soc.Civ. Eng-,J. PowerDiv' 8apO6)
Evaluation of an air
zweiacker,PJ., J.R. Gaw, E. Green and c. Adams. t977.
generatingstation' Proc
bubble anrtain to reduceimpingementat an electric
31: 343-356'
of theAwtual Conf.s. E. '4ssocFishandwianfeAgencia
rl
Scctioa I Utcrature Cited
of coolingtower drift in
Taylor,F.G., J-ld WatA andP.D. Parr. 1983. Seasonality
vegetatiotrat oRGDP. Ewironmmt ltXemational9: 149'152'
of fish collectedfrom a
TexasInstnrments,Inc. 1978.Inidal and ,,6endedsurvival
at the Indian Point
fuie mesh continuouslyoperating traveling screen
-}ZDecember1977'heparedfor
GeneratingStationfor theperiod15Jgne
ConsolidatedEdisonCompanyof NewYorh Inc'
and'A'S'Kolok' 1980'The
Thomas,G.L, R.E. Thorne,w.c. Acker,T.B. Stables,
flow in reducing fish
effectivenessof a velocity caP and decreased
ResearchInstitute' Repoft
entrapment.Universityof WashingtonFisheries
to SouthernCaliforniaEdison
I
I
I
I
I
lI
I
I
I
I
cipalUtitityDistrictDocketNo.500312.EIs-cA.73.w6.
I
U.S.AtomicEnerSlCommissionlgT3b.Finalenvironmentalstatementrelirtedto
I
Southern
1'
unit
station
Nuclear Generating
statementrelatedto
U.S.Atomic EnergyComrrission.1973a Final Environmental
station unit l' sactamento
operationof RancboSecoNuclearGenerating
operation of San onofre
Diego Gas andEtecrriccompany'
san
tbe
and
company
Edison
california
. DocketNo' 5G206'EIS-CA-73-1688-F'
to
Final environmentalstatementrelated
19?3c'
cornmission
EnerSt
Atomic
u.S.
t
I
I
t
theproposedSanonofreNuclearGeneratingStationUnits2and3.
SoutheraCaliforniaEdisonCompanyarrdthesanDiegoGasarrdElectric
Company.DocketNos.5s36}and5s362.EIs.cA.73-0518.F.
I
I
SECTIONtr
REPT.ACEMET.{TTECHNIQTIES
This pageintentionallyleft blank
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CIIAPTER7
INIR ODUCTIONTO REPLACEMENTTECHNIQIIES
(seeChapter1)'
Although it is generallybest to avoid an impaa if possible
with
mitigating an impact by replacinglost resources
under some circtrmstances
resour@sfor lost
similar resources(h-tdnd mirtgation)or by substinrti4gdissimilar
Wildlife Service
resour@s(ow-of-lcittdmitigation) is acceptable. The fish and
in California
mitigation policy, which is generallyfollowed by resogrceagencies
method' especially
establishesin-kind compensationas the preferredreplacement
I
(USFWS1981)'
for higblyvaluedresoruces
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
impactsin'kind are
The most promisingtechniquesfor mitigating soNGS
resources
reef-associated
constructingan artificial reef to replacefub and other
9); tbesetechniques
(chapter 8) and creatinga kelp bed to replacekelp (ctrapter
supPortsa kelp bed' In
can be combinedinto constnrctingan artificial reef that
(Cbapter10) would provide
addition, tbe restorationof degradedcoastalwetlands
b'ySONGS;at least15 fisb
in-kind mitigation for someof tbe fish speciesinpacted
speciesat risk at SONGSoccurin oastal wetlands'
and generallyacceptable
The out.of-kinaltedniques that seemmostfeasible
areartificialreefconstructionarrdwetlandrestoration.Constnrctinganartificial
be s.bstinrtedfor resourcesimpacted
rcef would produccreef rcsources&at courd
it is reasonableto concludethat
by SONGS. On the basisof existinginformation,
but it is not possibleto predict with
somefisbare produced ou artificial reefr,
In addition' there is the problen of
confidencehow mueh production occurs'
witb the dissimilarresourcesimpacted
equatingthe resourcesproducedon the reef
161
t
Chaptcr 7
need to be
by SONGS,such as water-colgmnfuh; yet tbesedissimitarresources
the difficulties
coEparedin order to deterEinethe sizeof reef needed.In spiteof
appropriate
in determiningthe size of reef neede4 an artificial reef would be an
enhance the
rcchnique for mitigating impacts of SONGS because it would
productivityof the marine environmenr
impactedby
Most of the speciesof invertebrates"algae and fish that are
zuch exceptional
SONGS do not occur in wetlands. However, wetlands have
techniquefor
resogrcevalue that wetland restorationwould be an appropriate
in-kind technique
mitigatinglossesthat cannotbe preventedor for whichno feasible
difficult to comPare
exists. As with constnrctingan artifrcial reef, it would be very
a wetland'
tbe resourcesimpactedby SONGSwith the valueof restoring
Virmally any
There are other alternativesfor out-of-kind compensation
appropriate out'of-kind
technique tbat producesnatural resourcescould be an
in this sectioninclude
mitigation tecbnique. Other techniquestbat are discrssed
quatityimprovement Fish
fisb hatcberie$coastalpreservatioa'researchandwater
effeAsof SONGS'and tbe
hatcheriesare not consideredfeasiblefor mitigatingthe
mitigationguidelines'
other three tecbniquesdo not conformto generallyacceptcd
Report evduates the
Tbis second seetion of the Mitigation Technical
that couldbe rsed to mitigate the irnpactsof
feasibility of replacemeuttec,bniques
are corsidered' The techniques
soNGS. Both in-kind and out-of-kindtechniques
reports to the MRc (e'g', sheeby
consideredhere have been discussedin other
1987a)and elsewhere;this report
1981a,Thum et a1.1983,Anbrose 1986e1986b,
updatesand summarizestbesediscrrssions'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
T
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
Inuoduaion to repliacamenttcchniquas
Chapter 8
This section is comprisedof five chaPtersbesidestbis one'
on artificial
evaluatesartificial reefs, including the evidencefor fish production
mitigation'
reefs; artificial reefs could be used for either in'kiDd or out'of'kind
kelp bed lossesiD'
Cbapter9 evaluateskelp bed creatio1as a meansof mitigating
the restorationof coastalwetlands;althoughwetland
kind. chapter 10 discusses
be primarily outrestorationwould producesomein-kindnalue,it wouldmostlikely
as mitigation
of-kind. Chapter11 evaluatesthe feasibilityof usingfisb hatcberies
such as coastal
Finally, Chapter LZ evaluates otber mitigation techniques,
presenratiorqresearcbandwaterqualityimprovement'
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
163
I
This pageintentionallvleft blanh
I
I
l
I
I
I
t
t
l
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER8
ARTTFICIALREEFS
Summala
afiificial
The main concftsionsfrom this chapter are: Properly desigRed
are similar to
reefs can suPPortcommunitiesof fis\ invertebratesand algaethat
organislDs
thosefound on natrual reefs. Tbe productionof sessileand sedentary
asrountof
(suchas invertebratesand algae)is incteasedby artifrcial reefs'but the
reefs has not been
fuh produced by (as opposed to attracted to) artifrcial
production, such as
determined. There is clear evidencethat some asPestsof
be negativeeffects
resnritment,are enhancedby artificial ree$, but tbere mayalso
productionon artificial
from increasedfishingmortality. Most cogcelnaboutfish
from scraP
reefshasfocusedon smallartificial reefsand artifrcialreeB constnrcted
quarry rock would likely
materials; a large artificial reef constnrctedfrom
reef couldfurnish
circumventthe limitations of tbesesmallreeB. A large artifrcial
food resourcesfor fish'
Eranydifferent tlpes of habitatsand an increasedvarietyof
residentson a large oue'
Fish that are tlansietrtson a small reef uright remain as
it wouldnot be asattractive
Fishingmortality night be reducedon a largereef sine
concentratedin a smallarea
to fishermenif fish densitiesare lower andfisb are not
productio+ it seemslikely that an
Thus, in spite of the unresolvedquestionof fisb
locationof a naturalreef would
artificial reef that mimicsthe size,configurationand
natural reef' Tbere is more
provide sgitablein-ki1d mitigation for impactsto the
rrncertaintyassociatedwitbusinganartificialreefasout.of.kindmitigatioubecause
of fish produced' Nonetheless'
tbere are no quandtativedata on tbe amount
kelp) that are sufficiently
properly designedartificial reefs (either with or witbout
165
I
t
Chapter I
wetland restoratioD'
largecertainly Produce resources' and so rePresent' along with
one of the two best available techniquesfor enhdncingmarine resources'
Introduction
their
Artificial reefs have been constructed for cennries, althougb
popularity of
widespreaduse bas only ocanrredin the last 2&30 years' The recent
as a fisheries
artificial reefs is linked to tbe perception of their usefulnes
to
organizatioDs
manageEeuttool and the desireby variousgovemmentandprivate
benthicorganisms
increasefuhing luccess.Becausefish are found aroundthem and
as a
(algaeand invertebrates)grow on theq anificial reefshavebeen coruidered
et al' 1978'Stephens
potentialmitigationtechniquefor at least10 years(Swanson
andPisanti
and Palmer !9|9,Sheehy19814Grove198eGroveet aI' 1983,Spenisl
Several'mitigation
1983,Thum et at. tg83,Alewas andEdwards1985,Davis 1985)'
(seeTable 1-1)' For
reefs' have been constructedin California and other states
concretepipe in San
example,in 1981a small artificial reef was constructedfrom
Long BeachHarbor was
Diego Bay to mitigate a fill projecq atrdTHUMS' reef in
harbor' Recently' a 7'aste
built i! 1982to mitigate dredgrng3ad filling in the
in Washingtonto
artificial reef (witb rock covering35 acres) was constnrsted
4 at' 1987} In spiteof tbese
mitigatefor the lossof 7 acresof breakwater(Hueckel
actual contributiou of artifrcial
application$ soEe resour@agenciesquestionthe
and Wildtife Service'pasonal
reefs to fish production (J. Fancber, U.S. Fish
remairs controversial'
communiUion), andtbeir implementationin mitigation
TheMRChasmadetworecommendationsaboutartifrcialreefs.First'the
possiblgngans of
that a bigh-reliefartificial reef be one
MRC has recomrnended
166
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
41ifiaial
as out'ofmitigatingmidwaterfish lossescagsedby SONGS;this reef would serve
that a low-reliefartificial reef
kind mitigation. Second,the MRC hasrecomrnended
t
Kelp forest
witb kelp be built to mitigate SONGS'impactson tbe San Onofre
applications'
community. This chaptercoDsidersissuesthat concernboth of tbese
I
I
appropriateI
Most of tbe discussionis relevant to both applications,but wbere
Also note
distingpishbetweenusingreefsfor in-kind versgsout'of'kind mitigation
t
I
I
T
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
ysefs
the artificiat
that the MRCs recomneudatioufor in-kind mitigation requiresthat
reef for in'kind
reef supporta kelp bed; tbe generalevaluationof usingan artificial
a kelp bed
mitigationis givenin tbis chaPter,but the technicalfeasibilityof cteating
in Chapter9'
on an artificialreef is discussed
Tobesuitableforuseasin.kindmitigationartificialreefsmustreplacelost
requirement' the
resourceswitb new, similar resources. Two aspectsof this
nanrral reefs and the
similarity of anificial reef comrrunitiesto comrrunitieson
discussedin the
production of resources(especiallyfish) o11ar artificial reef' are
(Section82) is
first two sestionsof this cbapter. Tbe productionof reef resources
mitigatiou' The third
alsoa major concernfor rsing an anificial reef asout-of'kind
asPectsof the designand locationof artifrcial reefs
sectionof this cbapterdisctrsses
tbe impacts of
(including cost), tbe fourtb section reviews information about
last sedion providesan overall
artificial reeB on soft-bottomcomrrunities,and the
enaluation
Pra,iottsMRC snrdrigs
TheMRChascornmissionedseveralstudiestoevaluateartificialree8asa
(Sheehy1981a'ThumeraI'
potentialtechniquefor mitigatingthe effectsof soNGS
167
'l
section' we discuss(1) tbe
and nanyal rees in SOuthernCalifornia In this
on
of assemblages
community struc$re (i.e., speciesdiversity and composition)
on tbe two reef qpe$
artificial andnansal rec$ and (2) the densitiesof fisb
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
E.1.1ConmunitY strucfur
I
Chaptcr 8
severalfield programstbat
1983,Ambrose1986a).In addition,the MRC sPoDsored
Laboratories(I3SL
collected data on artifrcial feefs. I-ockheedOcean Science
detailed snrdiesof
t983 q b and c) and DeMartini (1985, 1987)have conducted
sufvey of artifrcial and
PendletonArtificial Reef (PAR). Ambrose conducteda
Resultsfrom the survey
natural reefs througboutsoutherncalifornia in Fall 1986'
in Ambrose (1987a'
are $mEarized in this report and presentedin more detail
in AppendixC
Ambroseand Swarbrick1989);the methodsrsed are sulmarized
8.1 Similarity of artificial and natural reef communities
on artifrcial and
Mauy snrdiesof artificial reefshavecomparedcommunities
Bohnsackand Sutherland
natgral reefs (for a general review of frsb snrdieq see
Aom man'madematerials
1985). Most of tbese stgdiesfocgsedon reefs made
of artificial
(including tires and concrete). There havebeenvery few comparisons
and nanral rcefs can be
Tbe similarity of fish communitieson artifrcial
diversitiesof asselblageson the
by comparingthe compositionand species
assessed
(198?a)in Fall 1986representsoBeof
two typesof reefs. The zuweyby Ambrose
strudure on artificial and nanral
the most detailed comparisonsof community
reeft, and thesedataare presentedin this sedion
168
I
I
I
I
t
I
l
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
Arti$nal recfs
the Fdl 1986
Forty-onespeciesof fisb wcre samPledon the reefs during
than oD natural
survey,witb more speciesfound on artificial ieefs (Mean=l8'?)
ricbnesswasa result
reefs(Me an=ll2;Table 8-1). The differencein total species
or artificial reefs
of sigprficantly highgl qpeciesrichnes Dear.the bottom
richnes on
(Mean=153rre.10.9specieson nanrralreefs). Althougbhigherspecies
et al' Lg84)'mostsnrdieshave
artificial reefshasbeenreportedpreviously(Stephens
(Randatl1963'Fastand
reportedequalgr higherspeciesrichnesson nansal reefs
et aI' 1985'Matthews
Paganlgl4,Smith et at. tgfl} Alevizonet 611.lgss,Burchmore
1e8s).
reefs,altbougha
Most fish specieswere found on botb artifrcial and natural
on the other
werefoundon a bigherProPortionof onetlpe of reef than
few qpecies
equallyoften on
(Table &2; Arrbrose 1987a). Most cogrmonspecieswere found
blacksmith'California
both reef types. For exaqPle,kelp bass,black zurfperch,
reefs' opaleyeand
senoritaand rock wrassewerefound on virnraltyall
sheephead,
ocssred on a bigher
pile surfperchwere the only relatively commogspeciesthat
proportion of anificial reefsthannanrralreefs'
Clusteranalysiswasrrsedtoindicatethesimilarityofthefshassemblageson
reefsclusteredcloselytogether
different reeB (Figr'e g-1). somepain of artificial
(e.g.,TorreyPinesandPendleto&andMarinadelReyandHerrrosaBeach),
artificial reeb as a whole did not
indicating tbey were quite similar. However,
levels,as would be expectedif tbe fish
segregateinto their owDclusterat higher
reefs' In fact mostof the
on tbemwerenot similarto tboseon nanrral
assemblages
someartificial reefs'
clusterscontainingnanrralreefsalsocontained
169
Cbaptcr 8
Tabte &1
on artincial and n8turel neefs'
density;fiaf
and
Speciesrichness
lron bcstbh end ratcn'coluEr trrlsccts
Bcntbtc rnd retcr coluna spcdcs richncss ras dctcrolned
b bcstbic tr:ruccts' tlttr€lull
(Ambruc l9&/a). Total richncrs * J bdudcs aff spcUcs-rccorOca
spcdcs lth"eat nr= slgnlficently
trarsc.,ts, end frsb{cngth samplcs" Totat s@cs ti.b"c""^i;-Ghl"
s
a df'P
d{,P= o'noo; B€nthle t {J5'
t = e.n,u
dttfcrcot b.fiEGD udfidsl rnd nabnt J-Crotrr,
ncthods
duc'to
-oia not bc cslcd;tld for mtcr colunn ranplcs
= 0JXXlrl). Fon dcustttcs, rttldstd.*or,
tbc bcuthoc ms signlflcrntly dltrcrcnt
uscd to sanph dltrcrcnt llfcstags (scc Anbrsc l9t?a). D."rib,-;
ud nalrnl rtUs tt = 354rA df' P = 0lnA)'
bctrccn.rdtrdd
-
Spcd,sRichness
BENII|IC WAMN' TCTTAL
COUIAT ONIIEF
Dcnsily (No./l(D o3) WAIIR
BENn|IC
@LT,MN
frigAlt
ItEAl.f SE
-
ARNFIChLITEEFS
TorreyPincsAR
PeadlctooAR
NcrrportEc.cbAR
I-A HarborBrc*rrtcr
- itsklc
l-A tlarborBreakrrtcr
-oursi&
Kiag HertcBrellrrtcr
HcruceBcrcbAR
MarillDdRcYAR
PiEsPdltAR
nincoa OittrtuO
MEJII{ (SD
0
0.56
0
5t1.68
t
45.0 (3r.9)
?/96.,2,
t
1t
2l
fl
16
A
56a?($5)
2,,,2 (erz)
20' (16!)
2rE3 (t2)
a.7 (5,,3)
1t4.10
0
0
15616
309.{t
137(oro)
os Qta
ra2J (as.:E)
a
t5'
0
2
0
8
13
2l
2,
It
Ea6 (uBl)
9|oo (zt6.e)
s0r.6(56)
3te.7(64$
t2
l:l
m
16
19
16
3
0
0
5
9
t2
l6
a
Itl
u3(e5
.r0r)
I.IATTJRALRS
Mrrilc Stlcd nlcf
frJoltrCorG nef
DclMrrRccf
BurtGlP
t s PulgrsRccf
BorCrlY6
Sra Onofr KclP'Meio
Sro omfre f'rlP'l{qtb
S.t Mrtco tGb
tloMrn Roct
l4u!. Bcrcl l{qth
PclicenPttilt
PoiatViccotc
DotDiwTbctt
FLt BEt
Rincool&tP
MEAN (sD
I
':t
ll
l1
7
6
10
10
9
t2
t2
la
16
ltl
l0
l0
ror (oJ5)
5
2
5
2
0
0
5
5
6
2
5
I
I
9
a
3
3J (o-at)
I
I
I
I
I
I
la
16
l7
t2
tl
l0
12
14
L
t!
n
u
tl
l9
a
ll
ra3 (o.dt)
170
513 013)
uL7 (425)
srs ca,?
1gj
(7e:)
wt (431
s6.1(4.t
316.f(995)
e..7 (lt.e)
fla2 p.3)
s5 (8ar)
rs3 (!93)
16s,0c2e5)
5n3 05&7)
83 (nn
6r, (ur)
ns (27)
rr.t GiIr2)
5ZS'
7iI,
11692
0@
0
0
lo.t3
na
l@16
4.16
w0
rt95t
0r0
t1.{5
zto.
ta
t2a7 (sSiD
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Artificial rccfs
Table &2
rcefs.
Occurrenceof speciesof trsh on srtilicial and natural
a spccics occurre4 tnduding dl
T,he proportions of srtiticisl or Datalat r=efs on cbierb
and tish leEgth sanplcs
s'
lifestagps of tisb seen in bentbic and watcr column trarsccts
or for sport arc lnitlcatcd by
(Ambrose 19t?a). Spociesthst aFefisheil ati, -.-"rcially
SPECIES
Scoryaanagunau
Sebastesatmvinns
saiceps
Sebastes
sebastessermnoides
Sebastescar''|gtlts
Sebostesniniaats
Sebastesrasmlligu
Sebestescauinus
OryIebiuspkus
ScorpuicltthYs msrnuatus
Pamlabrs clatlvaats
Pomlabrs nebulifa
Traclurus synmeaias
Anisotremusdoyidsor;tii
Qteilotrcms sanurutrl
Ginlla nigricotts
Medialwu califomiasis
Embiotor'oiac.kuti
Phancrdanlurcaus
DuulidttltYs vocca
HypsttntscuYi
Rhocochihtstuates
BtsclryistittsIffieLJ
HypsyPPs rubianfuts
Quontis pwtaiPbllnls
S cmicossYPl*tsPttldcr
Arylulis califonica
Halichoens senricinas
LythryprwstuIli
bryphoPterus nidtoHi
Pl*roni&tltYs annosts
MicrostomusPacifiats
PamlichthYscalifonias
Hetemstidrusmstonls
' GibborzsiasPP.
Altoclints holdei
Atheini&
Hetmosilla@tnos
RathbunellasPP.
Sarfu chilicttsis
Tdalds scmifasciao
COI,${ONNAMES
SpottedscorPioufstf
IGlp roclfishs
TrcefsF
Olive rockfishs
Gopher rockfisbs
Vermilion rockfshs
Grassrockfrshs
Copper rockfshs
Painted grcenling
Cabczoss
Kplp basss
Barrcd sandbasss
Jack maclercF
SargoF
Blacl croalct'
OpaleYC
Halfmood
Black surfPercts
Whitc surfPcrcb
Pile surfpcrchs
Rainbor'; surfPerchs
RubbcrliP surfPcrch
IGlp surfPcrch
Gadbddi
Blaclrslnith
Califomia shccPhcads
Seoorita
Rocl *rasse
Bluc-bandcd gobY
BlackeYcgobY
Turbots
Dowr soles
Califoraia halibuts
Giant LclPfish
I(elpfsh sPP.
'
Island kclPfsh
Jacksnclt,ToPsnelts
ZcbraPcrchs
Ronquil
Pacific boniloF
LcoPard shatlf
771
IIEEFTYPEI'hnrnal
AXnnctAL
0.40
OA
0
0.?0
0
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.60
020
LM
080
0r0
0.70
. 0.60
1.00
0.90
LM
050
LM
080
0.60
050
0.70
LM
080
0"90
1.00
0.40
0.CI
0.10
0.10
0
030
0r0
0
030
0r0
0.10
0
020
0.06
0.19
0.06
0.19
0.06
0
0
0
050
0.06
LM
0"88
038
038
0.06
056
081
1.00
0.13
0"69
0.63
025
0.63
0.69
0.75
1.00
088
iln
025
031
0'06
0
0.06
025
0
0.13
0.13
0.13
0
0.06
0
'l
CbaPer 8
ooa
oo
oo o
oo
=",;;EFE
-='2EEq
-=EEETi=qE=:=E
-cEecE
E--t
Gg:
=
= - - . - ? i ! g E O-C- ) E
EP
Eoa
.9xP
=tt
o
F 50-
ff;
?rI g
te
I
Ftl=
=gE
r-d
D.=
I
I
l,
Eg-i
g.e
I
I
EEE
iE3*
I
I
s;gl
€Et
3
. t
ov
t
-rt-
E+EE
CE;E
o -- o
EF
'
I
I
I
I
t
oO
Eso
JG
z
>
EAEl
gE.EE
6oPE
6E E E
E:€g
LTz
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Artificial recfs
and
The data from Ambrose(1987a)indicatethat, overall,the composition
on artificial and natural reefs in SouthernCalifornia
diversityof fisb assemblages
artificial
were similar. Theseresultsagreewith npmerousotber stgdiescomparing
fish assemblages
and nanral reefs that have found a general similarity in the
1983q
(Russell Lg75,Jonesand Thompson1978,Molles t978, Bobnsack1979,
Miller 1981'
1983b,Walton tgTg,smith4 at. tgZg,stone4 at. Lg7g,Gasconand
Stepbenset at. Lgu. Alevizonet al. tgSs,Mattbews1985).
alsosomedata
Althoughmostattentionhasbeenfocusedon fish,tbereare
reefs' The
on algal and invertebrate assemblageson artificial and natural
with a detailed
similarities of artifrcial and nanrral reefs are summarizedhere,
evaluationglvenin Anrbrose(1987a)andAnrbroseet 41.(1987>.
reefs were
The algal comrrunities found oD artifrcial and natural
algaewashigher
quantitativelydifferenL Perce1tcoveror densityof mostgfouPsof
pyrifera)occurred
(Maerocystis
on natural reefsthan on artificial ones. Giant kelp
comparedto 40Voof' the
more frequently on nangal ree|g-(70Voof nanrral reefs
ptants also tended to be
artificial reefs), and the densityand size of giant kelp
signifrcant)' Mean algal
greateron na$ral reefs(atthougbthe differenceswereDot
high coverof foliose red algae
heigbt was greateron aansal reefsbecauseof the
sensitiveto location and
and kelps. Algal assemblagesseemedpartiorlarly
of the differencesbetween
placement of artificial reefs. For example,much
the depthsof the reefs,with the
artificial and natural reefs can be erplainedby
Artificial Reef and Torrey Pines
shallowestreefs (the brealcwaters,Pitas Point
773
'l
Cbaptcr t
nrbidity may
Artificial Reef) zupportiagrelatively higb densitiesof algae. Watel
alsohaveinfluencedthe algal assemblages.
rees were
Overall, the inrrenebrateassenblageson artificial and naAral
and the
quite sirnilar'. The cover of sessileinvertebrates,partictrlartybryozoans'
reeB' while
densityof the gorgonianLophogorgiatendedto be higber on artifrcial
StronglocaXrottts
anemones,bivalves,the snail l<elletiTkeltdii and the red urchin
reefs. Total invertebratedensitywas
frutciscarus had higber densitieson naftral
not significantlydifferent betweentbe nro reef tlpes'
t.12 Fish densitY
artifrcial reefs
Mary shrdieshavefound that densitiesof fish are higber on
et al' 1979'Wdton
than on natural ree& (Fastand Pagantg|4,Russell lg7|,Smith
Iaufle and Pauley1985,Mattbews1985)' In Califoraia
severalinvestigations'
Pendleton Ardficiat Reef (PAR) has been the subject of
than oq nro nearby
Jessee4 at.(1985) reported a higher densityof fish on PAR
d al.[g[,
LgTg,Stephens
Kelp Bed (SOK)' The
natgral reefr, Las Pulgas Reef (IJR) and San Ono&e
comparedPAR and LPR
CaliforniraDepartmentof Fish and Game(CDF&G) also
4 al' 1986)' DeMartini (1987)
and fonnd a higber Jensityof fish on PAR (Iogstad
of fish than SOK but noted
fognd that PAR bad higber densityandbiomassdensity
on PAR wasmucblower because
that the standingstock(total numberor biomass)
tbe artificial reef wasmuchs;sraller'
fish
Arrbrose (198?a)'benthic
In the sunr€yof reefs in Southerncalifornia by
on nanrralreeB (Table 8'
generallyhad higber densitieson artificial reefsthan
t14
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Arti6cial rcefs
(Ctromis pwaipbnis)'
1). Mucb of the differeucein densitywasdueto blacksnitb
high (697' 529 and
Blacksmitbdensitieson three artificial reefswere particularly
Beacbartificial reefs'
2g7 frsh/L000m3 on PendletoD,Torey Pines,and Newport
one natural reef (300
respectively). In contrast,density1125thiq higb on only
panern in fish densitiesis
fish/1000m3on PalosVerdes). However,the obsenred
(which doesnot include
not entirely due to blacksnith; the densityof sport fisb
(mean=145/1000m3vs'
blacksmith)wasalso signifrcanttyhigher on artificial reefs
fractionaldf resultfrom
80/1000m3on nafiral reefr,t=3.946, df.=22.L,P=0.0007;
Satterthwaite'scorection for unequalvariances)'
variabb on both
The densitiesof fish iD tbe water colulDnwere highly
differencebetweenthe tn'o
artificial and nanrralree$, and therewasno significant
reef t1pes.
is much higher on
Previous strdies have often shown that fish density
and Sutherland1985;for
artificial reefsthannaturelreeft (for review,seeBohnsack
consistencyof this pattera is
an exceptio1,see Burchmore et sI. 1985)' The
reef tyPesthat have been snrdied
somewhatsurprisinggiven the wide rrarietyof
boats, quarry roch and ooncreteblodrs'
(including reeft oolstnrcted from 1fugs,,
that are
that placementfeatures(i'e., piles of material
rubble and pipes),suggesting
specificconstrustionmaterialsmaybe
isolatedfrom natgralrockyareas)ratherthan
richnes anddensity'
contributingto the generalPattemof higbfish
.Randall(1963)arrdRussell(1975)suggestedthatthepositionofanartificial
determinantof fish densityon the
reef in the surroundinghabitatwasan imponant
sandplains' isolatedfrom nanrralroclry
reef. Artificial reefsare usuallyplacedon
'l
Cbaptcr 8
rat'o' Both of
areas;they are alsousuallyfairly small"wi& a high perimetet't(>area
which fuh
thesefactorsnigbt influencethe sizeof the area'srurounditga reef from
distance
are attractedto the reef. Assumingfish are attractedto a reef from a set
a
(zu& as 300 q as rePortedby Shimizu[1981D,small reefswill attract fish from
radius of an
Iarger are4 relative to reef size,than large reefs. For example,if the
of areaof
ardficial reef is 10 m and it attractsfish from 300 m away,then the ratio
100m' tbe
attractionto reef areais 960:1. If &e radiusof the reef is increasedto
to reef area
absolutearea of attraction increases,but the ratio of atUactionarea
m' the ratio
decreasesto 15:1. If tbe radius of the reef is increasedto 1000
larger area
decreasesto 0.69:1. Small reefswill attract fish from a proportionately
densityon the
than large reeB, so the fish atnactedto the reef will occurat a higher
reef.
may
This putative relationship between reef size and area of attradion
smatl) generally
explainwhy the artificial reefs tbat havebeen shrdied(which are
large): the artificial
have higher fish densitiesthan most natural reefs (which are
to their size' Tbe
reefs night be attractingfrsh from an area that is large relative
on a small pef (and
densityof fiqh on a large artificial reef might be lower &an
benreenreef
similar to densitieson large nanrralreefs)becarseof the relationship
sizeand the areaof attractionreefs, especially
In addition to placcmentfeaftres, the designof artificial
maycontributeto higher fish
their greaterstmctual complexity(Smith4 al' lng),
densitieson PendletonArtificial
densities.Jesseeet 't1.(1985)attributedhigherfrsb
that the ratio of reef surface
Reef to tbe relief and height of the reef,but alsonoted
areatoreefperimeterandthedistancetoneighboringreefsandhardbottomaleas
t76
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
Anificial rcefs
and
could be important. At present, we lxrow too little about the behavior
aspecls
populationbiologr of Eost SouthernCaliforniareef fisb to identify critical
reefs'
of reef design- However, two speciesthat were abundant on artificial
mention'
blacksmithand barred sandbass(Psalabrs ndttlifer), deservepartiarlar
Bray 1981'
Blaclsmith rely on bolesand crevicesfor shelter@beliagandBray 1976'
of
Andersonet at. tgSg);anificial reefsbaveabrrndantsheltersitesin the interstices
were forurd
their rocks tbat seemto be ideal for blacksmith. Barred sand bass
Because
predominantlyalongthe perimeterof all reefs,at tbe sand/rockinterface'
per unit areathan
of their design,artificial reefshavea lelativelylongerPerimeter
on artificial
natural reefs,and this may explainthe higher densitiesof sandbass
reefs.
Onefinalaspectofartificialreefsthatmayinfluencefishdersitiesisthe
conspianous
biological commgnity growing on the reefs. One of the most
of giant kelp
characteristicsof nany reefs in southern c-aliforniais the Presence
presence
(Macroqstispyrifera),a largebrownalgathat formsa surfacecampy' The
nanral reefsbecause
of glant kelp did trot influenceour comparisonof artificial and
on the two
gant ketp densityon the reeft we sarrpledwasDotsignificantlydifferent
1987a),along with a
reef tlges (Ambrose 198?a). However,our data (Ambrose
coyet !979' Larson and
number of other shrdies (Miller and Geibel 1973,
stronglyinfluences
DeManini 1984,Bodkin 1986,1988),indicate th* Maaocystis
in deterrrining
of fish iD the water column,and thusis a key fastor
the assemblage
theoverallfishcommunityonareef.Therefore,theabilityofanartificialreefto
in the designand planning
supportgiant kelp shouldbe an importantcorsideration
of the reef.
TN
I
Chapter 8
qm
Althougb Fant kelp is clearly an imponant influence,frsb assemblages
reefs' For
be zurprisinglyinsensitiveto tbe biological characteristicsof artificial
(Grant et al'
example,fishes appearedat PAR within dap after reef placement
Moreover' tbe
1982),long before there was any biological structure on the reef'
in which the
Nmber of fish qPeciesat PAR increasedquickly during a time
bryozoan
invertebrate and algal community was dominarcd by the encrusting
algalturf (Ambroseand Anderson1989)' It seemsthat the
Cryptoarachnidiumand
fish assemblagewas not dependenton the cover of partiarlar "babitat'forming"
in attracting
species.Instead,physicalstnrshrreapPearsto be at least asimporturt
(seeHelvey and Dorn
fishesas the developinginvertebrateand algal communities
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1981;HelveyandSmith1985).
I
and the biota
The generallack of relatiorship betweenfish abundance
a dilemma
ocanrringon PAR and otberreefs(e.g.,Holbrooket at'inpt"ss) Presents
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
reef' It seenslogical
with regardsto enaluatingthe amountof 6sh producedon the
more fobd resourcesfor
that, as an artificiat reef sgcbasPAR developedmore and
production' However'fish
fisb it would be contributingto greaterand greaierfrsh
high densitiesmusthave
were abundanton PAR beforeitprorridedmuchfood; tbese
high 6sl densitieson
stemmedfrom tbe attraction of fish to tbe reef' The Presegt
its afirasdvenes to frsh' so
PAR may atsore$rlt (tO sone unloown degree)from
tbat the reef has increasednet
the existenceof food resourcesdoesnot guamntee
wereProducedon the reef'
productivityof fub nor that all of the fish on the reef
a
TheinvertelrateandalgalspeciesonPARmaybemoreimportantasfood
andshelterforyoung.of-yearfishestharrforolderlifestages.FishdidnotrecTuitto
habitat
pAR until it was two and a half yean old; it is posible that the resnritment
t78
t
t
t
l"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Artificial rcefs
Ambroseand Andersou
at pAR was not suitable before this time (DeMartini 198?,
1e8e).
8.13 Discussion
beenbasedprimarily
The valuesof artificial reef enbascementeffors have
invertebratessuch as
on the abundancesof fishes and economicallyimportant
Ngmerousshrdieshave
abaloneand lobster (seeBobnsackand Sutherland1985)'
tban somenatural reefs'
indicatedtbat artificial reefssuPPofthigberfish densities
beenusedto suggestthat
The comparativelyhigherdensitiesat artificiat reefshave
is the casedependson the
they are beneficialto fisherymanagement.Whetherthis
factorsthat causethe higberdensitieson artificial reeB.
and henceincreasefshing
The abitity of artificid stnrcnresto attract fsh,
Fish Attrac'ting
is well established.krge numbersof fsh aggegatearound
success,
1985),whictrare simplyratu or
Devices(FADsxKtima and wickham TgTL,Brock
and manyshrdieshavereported
underwatertites" that haveno resourcesfor fish,
(Turner
of adultfishshortlyafterareefhasbeenconstnrcted
significantabgndances
tg74' Russell1975'Molles
Fein and Morganstein1974,Russellet aI'
et a1.1969,
1981'Tubb et at' t98L' wilson er aI'
1978,$shncasf,and Talbot 1980,Ranasinghe
structurallysimplethat they could not
1gg1,walsh 1gg5). However,FADs are so
and the fsh found on artificial reefs
be increasingrecnritment,growttror survival'
individuals,are clearly not produced
large
partisularly
constnrctioq
after
soon
there.
t
I
T
t79
'l
Cbaptcr 8
t
It is generallyacloowledgedthat the higb densityof fish on new artificial
reefs is due primarily to aggegation;the implication is that older reefs,with more
of
mature biote haveproducedthe higb densitiesof fsh. However,'higbdensities
reefs'
fish on older reeft could also be due to aggregation. Someolder artificial
nrch as the Newport BeacbArtifrcial Reef, bavevirnrally no algal or invertebrate
populationsthat could provide food for fisb yet still have higb densitiesof fish'
few food
Other reeft, sucb as the HersrosaBeacbArdficial Reef, uot only have
fish occur
resourcesbut also havean oPeBstrucnrrethat provideslittle shclter' yet
densities
at high dersities. The behavioralresponsesof fhh that result in higb
reefs'
around FADS may also be responsiblefor high densities on artificial
abundant
Therefore,the preseuceof high densitiesof fish evenon reefsthat have
of fish'
resources,doesnot guaranteethat the reef has increasednet productivity
for fisb
nor that alt of.tbefish on the reef wereproducedon the reef' The evidence
in the nextsecdon
productionon artifrcial reefsis discussed
DewW is
A distinction betweendensityand abgndanceDeedsto be made'
of the total area
the number of fish in a definedarea (e.g.,no./1000m) regardless
in a prescribedarea
of habitat, whereasobttttdozceis the total ngmber of fish
distinctiou in
(usratly the areal extent of the reef or babitat oramined)' This
For mitigative
termiaologr is important, especiallywith respestto mitigation
production'but when zuch
purposes,there is no nrbstinrtefor rcalistic estimatesof
than density for indicating
esdmatesdo not exisL abundancewould be bener
area (DeMartini 1987'
mitigative value in comparisonsof habitats of unequal
DeMartinietal.|g8g:ArrrbrosearrdSwarbricklgSg).
180
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Artificial recfs
(PAR)
Density-abundancerelatioruhips at Pendleton Artificial Reef
for using
illustrate a coucepfirallysimple but nonethelessimportant coDsideration
densityand
arrificiat reefs as mitigation for impactednangal-reefhabitas. Both
(SOK) in
abundanceestimateswere determinedat PAR and SanOnofre Ketp Bed
PAR was25
1986(DeMartini 198?,DeMartini et sI. tgSg). Overall"the densiryat
27'26 times
times greater than that at SOK However,abundancpat SOK was
SOKversus
higberthan at PAR dueto its muchgreatersize(approximately88 ha at
PAR givesa
L2 ba at PAR). As'with numben,the total biomassat SOK and
fishper unit
clearerpictureof mitigativevaluethanbiomassdensities(theweightof
at SOK
area). Tberewasa muchhigherProPortionof juvenitesat PAR (70Vo)than
in
(l}Vo). The combinationof higher dersitiesbut smallerfuh at PAR resulted
total biomass
comparablebiomassdensitiesbetweenPAR and SOK However'the
of fisb wasabout75 timesgreaterat SOKbecauseof its greaterarea'
pendletonArti6cial Reef, conceivedas a meansof evaluatingthe potentid
evaluatedin Anbrose
of usingartificial reefsto mitigatecoastalimpacts,hasbeen
to serveas mitigation for
and Andenon (1989). Although PAR wasnot inteDded
wouldservesucha PurPose'
soNGS'impacts, it is instnrctiveto considerhowwell it
of impactedSOK
An erraluationof PAR'spotential to ProvideiD-kindrePlacemeDt
betweenPAR and soK
resourcesmust include a comparisonof similar resources
to different interPretatiolg'
However,the necessarydegreeof similarity is subjea
ocample'similarity in a fub
resulting in divergentviews of PAR's worth' For
in terms of overall speciescomposition'total fisb
assemblagecould be assessed
numbersorbiomass'orone-to.onereplacementatthespecieslevel.
181
Cbaptcr 8
level' the
At what level of similarity shouldPAR be evaluated?At a general
1987)' A
fuh speciescomPositiooat PAR wassimilal to that at SOK (DeMartini
PAR was
cluster analysis (Fig. 8-1) based on fish assemblagesindicated that
l
I
I
(Ambrose
basicallysimilar to other SouthernCalifornia artifrcial and nanral reefs
at PAR wasmost similar to two other
198?a). In this analysis,the fish assemblage
similar to a
artificial reeft (Torey Pines and Newport Beach),but it was also
and Barn Kelp
numberof natural reefs,includingTwo Man Rocb ks PulgasReef
in the SanOnofre regiotl
densitiesof
However, there are considerabledifferencesin the relative
of blacksmithwas
speciesbetween PAR and SOK (Table 8-3). The density
total fuh numbers
extremelyhigh at PAR. This fish representeda major portion of
productionof young-of'
at pAId and also accountedfor 9|Voof the total estimated
Garibaldiwere
year fishes(DeMartini 1987),yet wasvirtually absentfrom SOK
had much higher
also commonat pAR but absentat SoIc Conversely,SoK
in the relative
densitiesof senoritaand kelp bassthan PAR' Thesedifferences
indicatesa relatively
densitiesof speciesare reflectedin the clusteranalysis,whicb
andPAR'
low degreeof similarity betwcensoK (soKM in Figure&1)
Wbrydothesemarkeddifferencesindensitiesexistbetweenthetworeefs?A
betweenthe physical
likely explanation is that they rezult from the interaction
pAR, and the microhabitat associationsand habitat
characteristicsof soK and
of high-relief rock piles
requirementsof partiarlar fish species.PAR is composed
slope,perimeter (ecotone)'
with numerouscrevicesbetweenboulden. The crest,
weresamPledat PAR' Tbe fish on
and sandare clearlydefinedmicrohabitatsthat
182
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
Artificial reeB
Table 8'3
Ihnsttics(no./rfi}m2)ofsclcctfisbspeciesrtPendletonArttficlslRccfGAR)euit
Kctp Forcst GoKl'
at tro locations (soK out, soK r!) withb tbe san onofir
Data fton lhMartini (19t7).
PAR
Blaclsnith
963.9
LI
<0.1
Gadbaldi
11j]
0
0
Kelp bass
4.6
60.8
79.r
Seuorita
30.0
746,J
2808
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
SOKTN
SOKour
Table 8-4
at PcndletonArtlfrcial RlGf caR)
Ihnsltics (no./l0fl) d) of rdccr nsb spccicsovlr mlcrobsbltsts
(= ccotone)
1be crtst' slope, and perimetcr
and gt the San Onofit Kclp Fonst tSOil.
tbe
repr:scnts
ltc canopy uicmbabltat
micnobibttats corarEpond ro sanplcd sttatr rt PAR
and
Ooor
sca
tbe
as
wlthi; te tcetftorest' and tbe botton is dcfrned
upFr 3J m of ratcr
SOK ar: fiom lhMartiui (199) and
"oto.o
ratcr colunn up ro 15 n la heigbl o"tt iot-i,g1 and
Tcchnical RcPortJ.
€
-PAIIC"EST
BlacLsnith
7gs
STOTE PERIMETER
N:I
v9
soK-
CAt{oFY
Bcnrou
0.1
1.1
Gatbaldi
n9
4J
0.9
0
0
I&lpbass
9J
LI
1.1
5.02
15.4
Senorita
u}A
BS
15.0
66.9
38.9
183
I
Chapter 8
I
and
PAR use tbese miqrohabitatsdifferently. For exarrple' botb blaclsmith
garibaldiweremostabundanton the crestregionsof modules(fable 8-4)'
no
In contrastto PAR" SOK is a cobble'bottomkelp forest that hasvirnrally
as
vertical rock relief and few crevicesand interstices,but it hasMaooqstis canoPy
colum!'
well as bonom microhabitats.(Tbe canopyincludestbe upper 3 m of water
and
where Mrcrocy*is fronds form a mat'like layer at the zurface') Blaclsmith
the lack of
garibaldi were essentiallyabsentat SOK (Table 8-3), perhaPsdue to
speciesat
high-retiefrock alld crevicesfor shelter. Senoritawerethe mostabundant
with giantkelp (Fedetet d t974;
soK perhapsbecauseof their strongassociation
wereobservedat
Bernsteinand Jung1979).Few senorita'other thanyoung'of'year,
and most were
PAR. Kelp basswere also more abundantat SOK (Table 8-3),
that are closely
found on the bottom (Table 8a). Two other speciesat SOK
the kelp perch and the giant kelpfhh' were Presentat
associatedwrth Macrccystis,
soK but absentat PAR, wberethereis no Maoocystis.
(or a reef like
Tbe dissimilaritiesbetweenpAR and SoK suggestthat PAR
at
pAR) has only timited ability to sewe as in-kind mitigation fol impaos to fsll
soKMostofthedissimilaritiesseemtoresultfromthedifferentmicrohabitat
limited ability to sewe as in-kind
t]?es occlrring at PAR and SOIC PAR's
would not be suitable' since
nitigation doesnot meanthat a different artifrcialreef
physrcalcharacFristicssimilar to
no artificial reef has yet been constructedwith
that is
reef hasa fub assemblage
thoseat soK it is not surprisingthat no artifrcial
at soK (Fig' 8-1)' Nonetheless'a low-reliefartificial
very similar to the assemblage
to
on sucha reef would likely be more similar
reef couldbe built; the assemblage
184
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
Attificial rcsfs
more suitablefor
SOKs (especiallyif it supporteda kelp bed),andwould be mucb
in-kind mitigationof SONGS'effectsou SOIC
Mitigative vahte of PendletonAnificial Reef
potential
PendletouArtificial Reef wascoDceivedas a testof tbe mitigative
Nonetbeless'it is of
of artificial reeft ratber than to actuallyserveas mitigation
In this section'
interest to assessthe actualmitigativevaluethat PAR migbt have'
for the effectsof
we briefly evaluatePAR's ability to sewe as in-kind mitigation
SONGSon tbe SanOnofreKetpforest(SOK)'
and the most
Two important resourcesthat would be impactedat soK
kelp and the resident
amenableto in-kind replacementby artificial reeft, are giant
invertebratesatrdfuhes'
fsb assemblage.Kelp provideshabitatfor manyspeciesof
of artifrcial
and fish abundanceis nearlyatwap centralto mitigativeconsideratioDs
commercialand sport
reefs,undoubtedlybecauseof the economicimportanceof
resources'would PAR
fisheries. Giveu that kelp and fishes are important
for their los?
adequatelycomPensate
Apersistentstandofkelp(Mrcroq*borPterygophom)wasDever
(Ambroseand Andenon 1989)' The
establishedat PA& deqpiteuansplantefforts
suchas senorita'kelp percb'
lack of kelp probablyaffectedthe abundanceof fishes
tbe abundanceof certain
grant kelpfisb, and young-of-yearkelp bass. similarly,
been low' It is clear that PAR
invertebratesassociatedwith kelp must also have
kelp and the organismsassociated
could Dot sen|eas in-kind mitigation for giant
with it.
I
Chaptcr t
Although kelp could not be replaced,it is possiblethat the fish assemblage
observedat PAR could serveto mitigatefish lossesat SOIC However,the uumber
of fish producedby the reef (asopposedto the ngmberattrastedto the reefl is very
rlifficult to assess.A maximumestimateof production can be made by assuming
tbat all of the individuals on PAR havebeen producedon PAR. It is likely that
somefraction of tbe fish on PAR (perhapsa largefraction) is attractedto the reef,
rather tban produced on it, so this estimateis undoubtedlytoo high (DeManini
1987). However,evenunder this assumptionPAR falls well short of SOK in fish
by
abundance: the standingstock of fish on PAR is 4Voby number,and lVo
biomass,of the standingstock at SOK (DeMartini 1987,DeMartini et al' 1989'
ArnbroseandAnderson1989).
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
8.2 Fish Production
the
one of the most controversialaspecaof artifrcial reefsrevolvesaround
attract
questionof whetherthey actuallyincreasethe productionof fish, or simply
for an
fish. This questionis important becauseattracdonalone is not accePtable
of
artificial reef tbat is meantto offseta los of resources.The simpleredistribution
reef would not
biomaqs that ocsurs when frsh are attraCed to an artificial
would be provided'
compensatefor the loss of resolrces,sinceno Dewresources
contribute to fish
For this reason,determiningthe erilent to which artificial reeft
artificid reefs as
production is a critical stePtowardsevaluatingthe usefulnessof
mitigation.
that
The snrdiesthat bave been cited most frequentlyas demorutrating
have generally
artificial reefs increasefish productionin the marine environment
186
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
Artificialrcefs
a nearbyDaturd
cogpared tbe densityof fisb on an artificial reef witb densityon
the necessary
reef (e.g., Stone et al. LgTg). Althougb rece't discussionsabout
haveclarified the
cotrponentsof production(e.g, Bohnsackand Sutberland1985)
increased
point that local incrcasesin densityare not necessarilyindicationsof
Alevizon and
production, some researchersare apParentlystill confised (e'9'
Gorham1987).
Produstion
Fish production refers to tbe rate of changein fisb biomass'
alive at anytime
includesthe sumof growttringrementsfor all populationmembers
by higher
iu a given period (Chapman1978). Productioncan be insreased
natural causesor
recnritment or grourttr,&d decreasedby gfeatermoftality from
production;althougb
due to fuhing. (I-'nigration and emigrationdo not alter fsh
not cbangethe total
tbey changetbe spatial distribution of fsh biomass,they do
to measurethese
amountof fub biomasspresent.) Unfortunately,it is very diffictrlt
the acmd amount
componentsof fisb productioUlnd no one haseverdeterrrined
artificial reef' Tbe evidence
of fisb productionresultingfrom the constructionof an
in detail by Anbrose
for fisb production on artificial reefs has been reviewed
(1986a);the followingsectionssummarizeandupdatethat informatiou.
I
82.1 Recruitment
I
I
I
I
productionby makinghabitat
Artificial reefs couldpotentiallyincreasefrsh
Sincethe number of fisb strongly
or other resourcesavailablefor new recruits'
1978)'andyouDgfishare
infigsasgstbe amountof production@ackielandLe Cren
youngest age'grouPis frequently very
botb uumerogs and fast'growing the
To estimatethe contributionof
importantto overallproduction(chapman1978)'
t
t
t
Cbaptcr 8
recnritmentto production,two factorsmustbe evaluated: (1) Is there recluitment
to an artifrcial reef an4 if so,how much? (2) Would the recnris havebeenequally
successfulelsewhereif the ardficial reef did Dotexist?
8.2.1.1Recnritmentto artifrcialreefs
The term nrecnritment"has been usedwith different meaningsin different
stgdies;it is used here to mean the settlementof larval or post-larvatfish (or the
birtb of fish without a larval stage),as opposedto the movementof fish to a reef,
which is immigration.
Yogng-of-yearhavebeenobservedon temperateartificial reefsby a number
of researchen(including Parker et al. tgTg and Woodheada al. 1982)' In
California, Turner et al. (1969) reported small juveniles or young'of'year for a
number of fish speciesfound on artificial reefsin SouthernCalifornia partiailarly
pulcher)' Young-ofsenoritasPryjuli:t califordca) and sheephead(Smticossypttrts
year rocldsh (sebastaspp.)havebeenrecordedfrom the Sanhris obispo county
Ardficial Reef (sLocAR), an artifrcial reef in central california, from 1985
Recent
through 1987 (Krenn and Wilson 1986, pasonal ammnication)'
information ftom SIOCAR indicatesthat young-of-yearrockfish occur at higber
densitieson the artifrcial reef than on nearby nanrral reeB, possiblybecauseof
laiaeua on the artificial reef
higber densitiesof the overstory kelp Neteocystis
(Krena 1987).
One long-term snrdy of fsh recnritmentwas conductedon Pendleton
wereobservedin 1983,trvoand
of 11frshspecies
Artificial Reef. The young-of-year
188
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
Arti6cial rgcfs
From 19&4tbrougb
a half yearsafter PAR was built (Table 8-5; ISSL 1983a)'
on the reef each year
1986,the young-of-yearof 8 to 12 specieswere salnpled
in speciescomposition
(Table 8-5;DeMartini 1987). Tbere were somedifferences
and rock wrasserecnrited in
of recnrits in different years;for example,sandbass
differencesin the reliative
1983-84,but not in 1985-86.Therewerealsotremendous
far tbe most abundantspecies
abundancesof different species.Blacksmithwasby
on PAR in 1985-86.
on PAR, comprisrng95.98voofalt young-of.yearfisb
of recnritmentof fisb
The surveyby Ambrose(198?a)providesa comparison
recnritedto aftificial reefs'
to artificial and natural reefs. A variety of fish species
of artificial reefsthan to
On average,more speciesof fisb recnritedto the benthos
of all speciescombinedwas
natural reefs, and tbe mean densityof young-of-year
natural reefs (Table 8{)' On
higber near the benthoson artificial reeft than on
dense on artificial reefr' No
average,young-of-yearwere frve times more
of the nvo reef t)?es were
differencesin the young-of-yearin the water col'nrr
the young'of'yeardensityfor a
dominated
blaclsmith
PAR,
for
uoted
As
detected.
anificial andnanrralreefswas
uumberof reefs,andmucbof the differencebetween
and gobies(whidt were very
due to youug-of-yearblacksmitb. when blacksmith
differencein young'of'yeardensities
dcnseon oDebrealurater)were exclude{ the
densityon artificial reefswas
young-of-year
betweenttre two reef typeswasless,but
still sligb0yhigherthan ou nanral reefs'
Tbesuweyresultsmustbeinterpretedcautiously.Eachreefwassampled
bias was detected (Anrbrose 1987a)'
only once, Dd even though no temporal
a
recnritment period would bave provided
entire
an
over
information
detailed
in onlyone
t}e suneywasconducted
addition,
In
recnritment.
of
estimate
better
189
I
I
Chaptcr 8
I
Table 8-5
Young-of'y&r fish at Pendleton Artificisl Reef'
19t5} ru:
Ilrta for 19Ei O sunrc'y$I{ISL 19838)and 19t4 (1 $ntGy; IhMartbt
lrc lot
dcnsltics
but
X
colhctrd uslo, 61fcrc'i mcthods,so l,n*ctoe ls hdi.tr.d W
mcsn
csdmatcd
are
data
prcccntcd. Idodcal mcthodsrere uicd h 19tSand 19t6;
(Dctvtsrtinl
f$D'
par
dcnsttics ovtr tlc cotirt ncf bsscd on 3 surtlt cach
- lndlcetcsyoung'of'ycaraot prcscnth anysurtys for liat par'
Barrcdsad bass
Blact pcrcb
Bladcye goby
Blacksnith
Blucbandcdgoby
Califorda sheepbcad
Californiascorpionfish
Garibaldi
IGlp bass
Paiutcdgrccnling
Pilc pcrch
Rainborpcrch
Roctctrassc
Sargo
S€sorita
Zcbra goby
1983
1984
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
DENsnY(No./lmM1
19186
19E5SE
MEAI.I
SE
MEAl.r
63
205
8ffi2
108
32
0.1
16
x
x
x
2L6Z
25
0.(B
45
*it
815
3361
2t
42
0.1
2.
11
5/,25
0.1
1
0.15
03
x
x
;"'
x
8A
02
45
0.(X
50
B5
8289
?2r3
3S?9
5&15
168
65
z2
Totd Isdividuals
Total lldiYiduals
minrsblaclsnith
Numbcrof spccics
65
8tfi
12
11
190
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
Arti6cial rccB
'#X?5h:*
onartiricialandnsturalrters'
snd mtcFcolurr! trllsccts
Bcnthic srd ralcr column spccies richncss ms detcraired from benthic
srttfrciBl and ns&ral rccfs (t
dilfe_rcntbGttDlGD
(Ambmsc 19t7a). Bcntbic specicsriciaess
dlftatnt betrcen
"r"
"igoifr-otly
slgnlficanoy
= 2J9,A dt,p = 0Jl1). Denslty of all cpeciescomiined near the bcutbos*as
artlncial and narurl rcefs (t = 3fi6,A df' P = 0.005)'
Psasity(No./$m te) waten
BEl.lnflc
'
Cot utto'l
tvlEAl.t SE
MEAl.r SE
-
Richncss
Spccics
Warzn
Belrmc
CoutMN
ARTIFICIALREETS
a
8A (r2S)
e.6 QS'n
5E3 (4?.e)
&s.4(17.O
0
0
0
41.6''(11.79)
4
IE
4?.e0r5)
r4a 04.E)
1
IE
0
0
4203(955)
50.0ea7)
30.6(ra)
r2-t (&2)
I
xrs (5:)
rE125 (ULre)
0
0
t3$ (5ae)
6a5 (6.25)
lJ(Mr)
la{3 (5{?o)
327 (rtst)
ToceyPincsAR
Pcadlcton AR
Ntn/pofi BcechAR
l-d Harbor Brcaloater
- insitlc
a
6
3
7
Lrd HartorBrcrFatcr
- outside
King HartorBrclkratcr
Hernca BcrchAR
Marina Dcl ktAR
Pit$ Poiot AR
Rinot Oilbbnd
MErr{ (sE)
5
3
2
2
a.l (0J0)
0
0
0
I
NATT,RALREEFS
Mrrinc Strlct Rcaf
bJolla Cot/eRccf
Del Mar Rtcf
Ban Xclp
l.lsPulFs Rccf
BorCropl
Srn Ooofre f.ch ' Mril
sen onofre IGIP'North
Srn Mrtco F'clP
TroMrn Rocl
f.eguor Bcrcb North
Pclicrn Poiat
Poi$t Vicaltc
Doo'r Dive Thcre
Flet Roclt
Rincon KclP
MEA!{ (SE)
3
3
3
2
2
I
2
I
3
1
3
5
3
1
0
2/ (03r)
83 (63)
63 (3O)
0
26458 (l{&95)
0
u458 0C.0e)
0
0
0
0
10.42(5.'t0)
10.42(E3o)
0
t0r2 (5.'12)
0
0
'
25ln (1336)
Lj3 (8-?3)
0
?7.?(t t)
nJ $730)
83 (45)
fi (?!2)
c3 (4.4)
50o (34t)
47.9 (41O)
rt8 (165)
3
0
I
0
0
0
D
l4
3
0
2
0
0
2
1
0
2.1el)
16? (14.4)
2"1(ar)
125.0(?3.7)
r8t (tor)
rt8 (s8)
ns (aa
ce Gll)
191
I
I
CbaperS
year; since there is yearly variation in reqnritmeut successfor many species
(Stepbenset al. 1986),the 1986 surveywill not be representativeof all years'
Nonetheless,the surveydemonstatesclearly that fish recnrit to artificial reefs; in
fact-artifici"l reefsnigbt provideparticularlysuitablesettlementsites.
Marine fish populationsare sometimesregardedas either habitat/resourcepopulationsocsurin a
lirnited or recnritment-limited.Habitat-or resource-limited
,,saturated"environment in which existing individuals utilize nearly all of the
essentialresources.Under theseconditions,additionalindividualscan only survive
and reproduce if more resourcesbecome available. In recnriunent'limited
populations,in contrast,the size of the populationis determinedby the numberof
individuals that zurvive the planktonic stage. Thus, when condidonsare more
to
favorable(e.g.,more food and/or fewerpredaton)' more individualswill survive
settleon reefs,and the populationwill increase.
fsb'
We do not know if babitatlimits the populationsof mosttemPeratereef
For example'
but proponentsof artifrcial reefsoften implicitly assgmethat it does'
attraEtedto an
it is sometirnesargUedthat it does not matter if fish are simply
artificial reef will
artificial reef, becausea fish leavinga natural reef to moveto an
which another
Ieave a 'space" or "oppornrniqf behind on the natural reef into
to artifrcial reefs
individual will recnrit and grorn;by this reasoningevenattrastion
only valid if the fish
will result in higher fub production However,this scenariois
emigrationto a
population is babitat-linited. In a recnritment-limitedpopulatioa
r92
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
l
I
T
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Artificial rccfs
Dewhabitatwould havelittle effeeton the total uurnberof fish
recnritswouldbe avarlableto fill the "space"left behind.
on a reef becatseno
few (uzually snall)
Tbere is evidencethat habitat may be liniting for a
the recnritmeutof
temperatereef fish. For example,shelteravailabilityinfluenced
Destsitesinfluenced
the blue-banded golqv&ytWtuts dalli)(Bebrents1987),8d
nichoki) on a
the number of breeding male blackeye gobies (Coryphoptmts
suchas blaclsmith and
SouthernCalifornia reef @reitburg 1987). Otber species,
nestingor
rubianda), mayalsobe timited by the availabilityof
garibaldi(Hypsypops
sbeltersites(seeBray 1981,Clarke1970)'
However,therehavebeennosnrdiesonhabitatlimitationfortbevast
is no evidencethat habitat
majority of temperatereef species,and thereforethere
There are numerousstudies
limits temperatereef 6sh populationsin general'
rather tban
indicating tbat coral reef fish populationsare recnritmeDt-limited
that
1986),whichsuggests
habitat-limited(e.g.,Williams 1980,Doherty1983,Victor
facL Doherty and Williams (in
the samenigbt be tnre of temperatereef fish' Iu
pcipulations'including those in
press)have arguedthat the dynamicsof reef fish
by fluctuatioasin recruitment
temperatecoastalregions,wilt be stronglyinfluenced
timiting the higherdensitiesof
If resources(but not babitat) are sometimes
detrimental' By concentratinga
young-of-yearon artificial reefs could acnrallybe
othenvisedispene to less crowded
large number of young'of-yearthat "night
of a cobort of recnritsrnight be
survivorship
and
growtb
post-settlement
habitats,
the reef wasnot tbere'
lower on an artificial reef tbanit wouldbe if
193
Cbapter 8
We needto loow muchmoreaboutthe populationdyaarnicand community
interacdonsof tenperate rocky-reeffish than we Presentlyknow before we will be
able to determine tbe relative importance of tbese different factors. The
uncertaintyabout the facton that are linriting fish populadonsleadsto uncertainty
of resruitmeut to artificial reefs. Even if fish recnrit to
about the consequences
ardficial reefsin substantialnumbers,constructingan artificial reef wilI not result in
elsewhere'
higberfish productionif the recmis would havebeenequallysuccessful
8JJ Growth
Some information on the growth of fish on an artificial reef has been
collectedby Dewees(1970,Deweesand Gotshall 1974)on a 30 m x 8 m reef
constructedfrom tires. ThirteentaggedcopPerrocldsh grewan averageof'273 mm
younger
over 191 dap. Diet information suggeststhat somefish, especiallythe
ones,fed on organismsthat grewon the artificial reef'
is
Most of the evidenceon the contributionof artificial reefsto growthof fisb
reefs
indirect Severatsttrdiesbave shownthat organismsthat ocetrron artificial
Turner er
were important itemsin the dietsof somespecies(Pearceand Chess1968,
(Hueckel
al. Lgilg,Lindquistet aI. tg85). The work by Hueckeland his colleagues
providessomeof the
1980,Hueckcl and Stayton1982,Buckleyand Hueckel 1985)
to fish growth. It
best evidenceto date for the contribution of an artincial reef
reef, at leastsomeof
demonstratesthat, while fish are in the vicinity of an artificial
it is not clear
tbem receivesubstantialPortioDsof their diet from &e reef' However'
weeksor months'c:m
what proportionof the overalldiet of the fish, averagedover
on an artificial reef for
be attributedto tbe artificial reefs,sincefish might forage
194
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
Adficial tcefs
an artifrcialreef
only a few dap beforemwing to otber areas;evenfsh capturedon
couldhaveobtainedfood from natgralrockysubstrates(Hueckel1980)'
reef' othersdo
Although somefisb on artificial reefsappearto feed on.the
York and Soutb
not. Eleven speciesof fish collectedfrom artifrcial reefsoff New
faunafor food (Steimleand
Carolinawere not highly dependentoDreef'associated
witb Torrey PinesArtificial Reef
Ogren 1982). Diet informationfor fuh associated
fish were
(=Bureaucrat Reef) in SouthernCalifornia also indicated tbat some.
(Daviset aL'1982)'
eatinglargenumben of animalsfrom the surroundingsandarea
is
tbat anificial reefswill attractfsb as long as there
Mottet (1981)hassuggested
of foodon the reefitselfis not essential'
adequatefoodnearbythe presence
artificial reefs is
Much more detail about tbe feedingbehaviorof fsh on
to groutth' Even
needed to determine how much artificial reefs contribute
somefood for some
Hueckel's snrdies,which indicate that artificial reefs funish
quantitativeestimateof the
fish, doesnot providetbe informationneedeilto makea
informationcould
increasein fish biomassdue to an artificial reef' The necessary
to measgrefish movements'
be gatheredftom time/energ budges,t^gsng sttrdies
gut-contentandforagingbehaviorsnrdies'etc"
833 Natural mortalitY
assumedto be higher than
Suwival of fsb on artificial reefshasoften been
complex refuge from predation'
on nanrral reeB becausetbe forner offer a
higber on artificial reefs' and these
However,the densitiesof predatorsare also
on the reefs' DependingoDthe
predatorsprobablyincreasethe risk of predation
195
'l
Chapter 8
I
small fisb could be
relative strenglhsof thesetwo oPposingfactors,mortality of
been an attemptto
either increasedor decreased.Unfornrnately,there bas never
t
measruesurvivorshipon artificial reefs.
I
I
I
I
E2.4 Fishing mortalitY
mortality may
Many fish speciesexperiencemortality due to fishing' Fishing
artificial reefs attract
be partiorlarly important for fish on artificial reefs because
reef comparedto
anglers,so frshingpressureis oftenmuchheavierover an anificial
artificial reefs simply
a nanrral reef (Turner et al. 1969,Matthews 1985)' If'
on the fish stocksin a
conce1tratedfishing efforl they would haveno net effect
(CPIJE)is frequentlyhigheron artificial reefs'and
region- However,anglersuccess
expendedin an areaand
this maylead to an inc:easein bo& the total fishingeffort
the biomassof fish han'estedfrom the ocean'
reeft is evenlnore
The potentiallyheavymortality due to fishingon artificial
reeB are considered'Fast
important whenthe frsh attractionpropertiesof artificial
to artificiat reeft' but not in
and Pagan(1974)found that fish movedfrom natural
to an artificial reef was
the other diredion Similar unidirectional movement
Solonsky1985)' Out of the 272
detestedat Monterey,California (Matthews1985,
that were recapturedawayfrom
fish taggedin the Monterey study,all of the fisb
natural reefsto the artificial reef- An
their original rocationhad movedfrom the
to the nanrrarreef could haveresulted
absenceof movementfrom the artificiar reef
reef' so that fish that movedto the
from the high fishing Pressureon the artificial
by the
fishingmortalitywassuggested
artificial reef were cipnrred by anglers' High
196
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
Artificial rcefs
snrdy were caugbt by
fact the gTVo of.the fsh recapnred in the Monterey
(Matthews1985).
sportEsbermen
reefsmay drarnatically
The MontereysnrdysuggesBtbat fishingon artificial
of fishingwould dependon
lower tbe survivorshipof fish on the reefs. The impact
to nanrral reeft and the
urany factors, including fishbg Pressurerelative
on artificial reefswill impact
charaeteristicsof different species. Clearly,fisbing
gobiesand blacksmith'are not
different speciesdissimilarly. Somespecies,sucbas
by fshing' Fishingmortality
caughtby fisherrrenand so are unlikelyto be affected
suchas kelp and sandbass'
is potentially very important for manyother species,
time and place' Fishing
The impaa of fishing will vary accordingto species,
pressurecouldalsobe controlledwith restrictiveregulations'
on two sPatid scales'
Mortality due to fuhing could affect fish production
mortatitycouldreducethe
From the standpointof an individualreef,higherfishing
it might not have regional' or
amougt of fsh produced on the reef, although
greatertotal
However,if artificial reefslead to a
population-wide,consequences.
they couldresultin lower standing
bionass of fish berngharrrestedfrom tbe ocean,
California'wherema$ystockare
stocks,partiarlarly in a locationsuchas Southbrn
about overfrshing' By reducingthe
heavilye:rploitedand there is alreadyconcero
mortality causedby artificial reefs
statrdingstocksof somespecies,higher fishing
couldpotentiallyreducetheamountoffrshproducedinanentireregion
191
CbaPer t
825 Discussion
i3sueof fish
Application of tbe phrase"attractionversusproducdon' to the
tbat attraction
productionon anificial reeft is perhapsnisleadingbecatseit implies
On very simple
and production are munrally orclusive. This is not the case'
maybe operating'
artificial reefsor Fish Attracting Devices(FADs) attrastios aloue
(and certainlythe
Horvever,the existingevidencesuggeststhat most artificial reefs
I
I
I
t
I
I
frsh production
quarry rock reefs consideredhere for mitigativepurposes)increase
but
or productiono"
to somedegree.The relevantquestionis not "is thereattracdon
t
reef (taking into
rather \rhat is the net increasein frsh productionon an artificial
to redize tbat an
accountpossiblyincreasedfrshingmortality)." It is alsoimportant
I
not otbers'
afiincial reef night increasethe productionof somespeciesbut
I
an artificial reef'
There are no dataon the actualamountof fish producedon
blacksmith' is almost
The production of some specieq such as gobies and
recnrit to artifrcial
undoubtedlyincreasedby anificial reefs. Both of thesespecies
gobiesat leastare so
reefsin southerncalifornia and neither is fshed; in addition'
near tbeir settlementsites'
sedentarythat they probably do all of their feeding
recruitment-limited'artificid
unless these small, sedentary,unfished speciesare
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
reefsincreasetheir Production
comPonentsof fish production
However,for otber speciestbe gairs in some
For manysoutberncalifornia
might be reducedor eliminatedby lossesin others'
cenainlyincrease{ buJwe do not
fisb species,somecomPoneatsof productionare
increasesmight be discountedry'
have enougbinformation to determinehow these
in
pbrtiorlarlyfhbing mortality'so overallchanges
in other comPonents,
decreases
198
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
T
I
I
I
I
T
Artifieial rccfs
datlvatus)afi
produsdoncannotbe estimated.For exanPle,kelp bass(Pualfrru'
that is obtained
sandbassrecnrit to anificial reefs,but the ProPortionof tbeir food
Thus' for most
from artificial reefsis not knoum,and they both are heavilyfished'
information about
speciesin SoutbernCalifornia we do not have enoughspecific
well enougb'to
their use of artificial reefs, nor do we u1derstandtheir ecolosr
by an artificial
determinewbether(or to what degree)tbeir productionis increased
reef.
production
Unfornrnately,the speciesthat we are confidenthaveincreased
nor are they sPecies
importantsPecies'
on artificial reefsare not the economically
there are wa)Eto
that are likely to be'heavilyimpactedby SONGS' However'
reefs. The principal
reduce the uncertainty about fish production on artificial
bowever'
of an artificial reef is that it might increasefshing mortality;
disadvantage
or reef size or design
fishing mortality can be controlledby restrictiveregulatiors
to artificialreeBas
(seesection85). Sincethereis evidencethat fishrecnritaswell
are similaron artificial
naturalreefsand that benthicorganisms(on whichfish feed)
to concludethat artificialreefs
and nanrralreefs(Arrbrose1987a),it is reasonable
produsdon'
of appropriatesize,designandlocationcanincreasefish
will occur on artificial
Even if it can be assumethat somefsb produAion
pulPosesto estimatehow
reefs,it is critically imponant for out-of-kindmitigation
muchproductionresultsfromcorstructingareef.Estimatesoftheamountoffish
producedonartificialreefsareneededtoestablishdefinitivelythesizeofreef
in moredetailin section833'
requiredfor mitigation;tbis subjectis discussed
199
Chapcr 8
In spite of the uncertaintyabout tbe amountof fish they produce,artificial
reeft provide one of tbe few oppornrnitiesavailablefor enhancingnearshoreEarine
resonrces,so they could be a valuabletechniquefor mitigatingunavoidablemarine
losses.The challengewill be to insurethat the sizeand designof anificial reef ued
for mitigation is appropriatefor the impact"
83 Designand Location
With the caveatthat importantasPectsof fish productionhave not been
adequatelyevaluated,and that gains in production could be negatedby heavy
fishingpressureon artificial reefs,it seemsthat artificial reefscouldbe appropriate
for mitigating resourcelossesor enhancingfish populations.If artificial reefsare to
be
achievetheseobjectives,important questionsaboui the appropriatedesignmust
addressed.
E3.1 Design
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
The most commondistribution of materialsin artificial reeB in the United
however'the
Statesis to depositall of the reef materialin one place. In California'
t
piles' or modules'
material for most rccent.reefs has been placed in discrete
possibleadvantage
separatedfrom eacbother by exparsesof sandysubstrate' One
I
(i.e. habitat along the
of separatemodulesis that the amountof ecotonalbabitat
is placcdin only
sand/rockinterfacc) is higber than if the sameamountof material
to test the importanceof
one pile (Grant et a1.1982).lhere are few data available
juvenilebarredsandbass'
ecotonalareato fsb. However,higherdensitiesof older
on the ecotone
young-of-yearsenorita,and blackeyegoby (coryphoptmu nichoki)
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
Aflificial rcefs
1987)suggestthat
comparedto tbe crest of PendletouArtificial Reef (DeMaaini
'Fish densitiesin tbe sandareasbetweenmodulesat
ecotoualarea is importantpAR were also highsl than in the surroundingsand area (DeMafiini 1987'
during the Fall 1986
Andersond al. !ggg). In additiou,barredsaudbasssarrpled
of all reefs (Ambrose
surveywere found predominantlyat tbe sand/rockinterface
modular and
1987a). unfornrnately, there has never been a shrdy comparing
of modular
"single-pile" reefs, so the Dature and extegt of tbe advantages
construstioqif anY,are Dotknown.
be maderegarding
When desigUinga modularartificial reef, a decisionmust
betweentbe moduleswill
the appropriatedistancebetweenmodules.The distance
andspecies
influencethe degreeof movementof fish betweenmodules'the density
effectiveareaof the reef'
compositionof fish in tbe areabetweenmodules,and the
effests of different sPacing
Unfornrnately, there have been no snrdieson the
Game constnrctedan
pafien$. Recently, c,alifornia Department of Fish and
by differentdistances'and
artifrcial reef with two setsof modulesthat are seParated
this inlormationshouldbe availablein the future'
have been oonstructedfrom
Most of tbe artifrcial reefs in SouthernCalifornia
a nanrralsubstrate'and it is
quarry rock Quarry rock basthe advantageof being
of the reefsincludedin the Fall
relativelyineryensivein California However'two
of the communitieson these
1986suweywere madefrom concrete.A comparison
reefs built from quarry rock is
concretereefs to communitieson four roclcpile
found on the concretereeBwas
presentedin Table 8-?. The numberof fish species
but the overall density of fisb was
slightly higher than on the rockpile reefs,
are large)' The dersity of young-ofsomewhatlower (althoughthe standarderrors
of tbe densityon rockpileree$'
year Esh on concretereefswaslessthan a third
207
Chaptcr 8
Algae and iuvertebratesalso occurredat corsistentlylower densities.The concrete
the
reefs were relatively deep, which confoundsany analysisof the influence of
provide
concretealoue. Nonetheless,thesedata suggesttbat concretereefsmight
somewhatfewerresogrcesfor fish which couldaffectfish production'
Table &7
t
rcckpllc rccfs
T\vo concretc rcefs Ncnport Bcscb ald Hcnoss B'8cb) atrd four
(Ambrcse
(Torrey Pines, Pendleton;Marins Del Rey and Pttss Point) nrcr=sampled
point
contaa't
1987a). Percent cover information nas collec'ted using a randoo
lu Dor
mr
I
mctho4 algal and invertcbrate densities wtr: colletcd using
dctallcd
quadmts, ioa nrU inforuatioa ras collectcd from visual transccts:
methods arl prcscnted in Anbrose (19t7a).
I
- RooenE-
MEAI.I
SE
MEAI.I
SE
L2
00
1.0
6..1
1.0
LJ3
0.60
425
6.9
3051
632
632
431
l:}io
raJ4
zrs
3109
y2
05
lmJ
4.15
168
5n1
19L0
330
1780
106.9
AI.GAE
TotalVo covcr of alg3lc
Undsrstory kclp density (No-/100 rn2)
INVERTEBRATES
TotalVocotr of scssilcinwrtcbrates
totd acasityof iavprtcbrates(No./n2)
FISH
Nunbcr of spccics
BcathicDcositY- dl lifestagcs
BcnthicDcasitY' Youag-of'Ycar
2W
t
I
Comparison of concneteand roclspile reefs'
- Coxcrere-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
t
T
I
I
T
I
T
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
I
I
Aniscial rcsB
fish species
Reef beigbtmaybe imponantfor attractingor supponingertain
in otber snrdies(see
(sucbas blacksmith);its importancehasalsobeensuggested
tbat the relief and height of PAR
Mottet 1981). Jesseeet al. (1985)suggested
natural reefs'
contributedto tbe high fisb densitieson PAR comparedto nearby
the densityof
Data from the 1986srwey suggesttbat reef height nigbt influence
Hgrt"t artificial reefs
somespecies(Ambrose1987a),but there is no evidencethat
of many fuh
produce more fish. Patton et a!. (1985)suggestthat tbe densities
artificial reefs may
speciesare "saturatingfunctioru"of reef height,so that tall
wayof producing
andmaynot providea cost-effective
actuallybe 'over-engineered"
be more important
fish. It seetrlsthat a varietyof heightsin an artificial reef might
of micTohabitats
than maximumheight of the reef, since the increaseddiversity
possibitty has not been
might have a greater effect on fsb productioq but this
snrdied.
likely to play an
The srustural complexityof an anificial reef is also
reef (Smitb4 al' t979)'
important role in determiningthe densitiesof fsh on the
artificial reef could
The variety of microhabitaa existing on a large, complex
reef' On a smaller scale' a
increasethe number of speciesthat reside on the
refugesfor many species' The
stnrcturally complot reef could provide abundant
blacksmith'aPPearsto benefit
most commonfish speciesin the Fall 1986suney'
rely on holes and crevicesfor
from the complexity'of artificial reefs: blacksmith
et al' tg89)' andartificial reeB
shelter(EbetingaadBray tg76,Bray1981,Anderson
haveabundantsbeltersitesintheintersticesoftheirrocks.Altboughstructural
has not been a thorougb sildy
complexityseemslikely to be important' there
of fuh on artificialreefs'so it is not
relatingit to the productioqor evendersities,
ChapcrS
possibleto predict the effectsof high or low structuralcomplexity,or the influence
of different t)?es of complexity.
t32 lacation
The site chosenfor an artificial reef may be more importarrt&an the design
of the reef (Ogawa1982). Two aspectsof reef location tbat could influencetbe
communitiesthat occur on a reef are the deptb of the reef and its proximity to
nailral reefs.
The depth of a reef can havea substantialinfluenceon the communitythat
developson ir In somelocations,shallowreefs may not be feasibtebecauseof
navigationalsafetyconsideratiors;otherwise,a wide rangeof depthsis available' In
th. p.rt, most of C-aliforniaDepartmentof Fish and Game'sanificial reefswere
constructedin water that was at least 20 m deep. More receutly, california
Department of Fish and Game has constnrctedree& in relatively sballowwater'
includingPAR (15 n) and the PitasPoint Artifrcial Reef (11 m). The mostobviots
differencebetweendeepand shallowartifidal reeb is the high abundanceof algac
fisb
on shallor reefs, especiallytbe kinds of algae that are likely to enhance
glay enhance fish
populations (Ambrose 1987a). Maaocystis.which also
In
populations,g.ew only on tbe shallow artificial reefs zuweyedin Falt 1986'
higber on
addition, the densityof somebenthic fisb, includingyoung'of-year,was
shallowreefs.
of their shallowdepth breaknratershad someof
Perhapsas a consequence
1986survey'
the higbestabundanccs.ofalgaeseenon artificial reefs in the Fdl
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Arti6cial rceB
Tbe diversiryand
Three of the four artificial reefs witb kelp were breakrvaters'
than on the other artificial
densityof fub on breakrvatersalso tendedto be higher
of sport fish young-of'year
and nan[al reefs. For example,the highestdersities
of fsh in the watel
occured on breah*'aters. In additioq the higbestbiomass
tbat a breaktrater'
columnon artificial reefs occulredon brealflr'ates. It appears
a rich and abundatrtfisb
tlpe configurationmight be an effectiveway to generate
evaluatewhich aspectsof
fauna However,there is not enoughinformation to
t
brealwaten contributemostto their biologicalcommunities'
I
I
I
T
of
that occurson a reef will dependon the deptb
Sincetbe fish assemblage
a depththatwill developthe
the reef, an artificial'reef shouldbe corstructedat
informationto predictprecisely
desiredassemblage.At Present,thereis not enough
different depths. California
the communities that will develop on reefs at
l'
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
a seriesof experimental
Departmentof Fish and Game hasrecentlyconstructed
JJ m deep'so informationfor
artificial reefswith setsof modulesbetween15m and
Orrrently' it seernsmost
tbat depth range should be arrailablein tbe future'
for in-kind replacementof reef
reasonablethat an artificial reef constn'rcted
the impactedreef; there is not
resourcesbe placed at about the samedepth as
the depthsof reefs constructedfor
enougbinformation to developguidelinesfor
out-of-kindmitigation
the distanceto tbe nearest
A secondaspectof reef placementconcerns
in relativelyurstructuredhabitas' such
placed
are
reefs
artificial
Most
reef.
nanrral
from nanrralreefs' Althoughtliis
isolated
is
that
location
a
in
bottorns,
as'sandy
reefs ability to attract frsh' and is
type of location may maximizean artificial
'
205
Chapter t
it is oot
frequentlycited as a criterion for siting a reef to be usedto enhancefishbg
necessarilytbe bestlocationfor mitigativ: purPoses.
The
Only nro reefs in Catifornia havebeea constructednear nanral reeB'
enhance
San Irris ObrspoCounty Artifrcial Reef (S[,OCAR), which was built to
ready
roclfish recnritment, was constructednear Danrralroclry regions to allorv
Pitas Point
colonization and movement of speciesocanpyingroclsy habitats'
in
Artificiat Reef (formerly called Ventura Artifrcial Reef) was coustnrcted
For species
relatively shallowwater approximately500 m from a naturalkelp bed'
have little
with planktonic larrrae, distance to a nanrral reef would probably
juvenilesand
influenceon recruitmentto an artificial reef. However,movementof
reefs' The
adul6 would be facilitatedry the closeprorimity of artificial and nanrral
of species
proximity of a nanrral reef would also be important for the recnritment
over sbort
that are live'bearing (such as surfperch)or have larrraethat disperse
reacb an isolated
distances. Specieswith linited dispersalmay find it difEcult to
only dispenesover
artifrcial reef. In partiorlar, gant kelp (MacrocysisWifem)
g2j2)' and the failure of
short distancesunder most,cirqrmstances(see Section
to the lac* of
in
kelp recnritment on most existingartificial reefsmay be due Part
PitasPoint' which is
nearbykelp beds. (In this regard' it is intcrestingto note that
brealsrater that zuppora
near a kelp be4 is the only qnificial reef that is not a
kelp bed would greatly
kelp.) Positioningan artificial reef adjacentto an existing
artificial reef (see section
enhancetbe probability of establisbingkelp on the
fishing
gl;L2). Placingan artificial reef near a nafiral reef might also reducetbe
reef would provide adjacent
pressureon the artifrcial reef becausethe natural
frshiugsites.
26
I
I
I
t
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
ertificid rcefs
833 Size
reef
One of tbe most critical decisionsaboutreef designinvolvesthe sizeof
needed
that will be requiredto achievea certainlevel of resources.The sizeof reef
to the
to mitigate a partianlarimPactdependson the quantityof resourceslost due
amountof
i-p".t, and the resourcesthat will be providedby the artificial reef. The
reef is
resourceslost canuzuallybe estimated,but the productivityof an artificial
on artificial
diffrcult to predict becauseof the uncertaintiesabout fish production
usedto estimatethe sizeof reefsneeded
reefsin general.In addition,the processes
for in-kind versusout-of'kind mitigationare differint'
8.3.3.1In-kind
reef
one approachto the problem of determiningthe size of anificial
to require 1:1
neededas in-kind uritigationfor damagesto a naturalreef would be
reef impacted'a
replacementof habitat area; that is, for everyhectareof natural
assumesthat
hectare of artificial reef would have to be built' This approacb
reef and
productionper gnit areawould be the sameon the replacemeil artificial
reef that rnimi6 $s
tbe natural reef. It seemsreasonabletbat an artificial
would produceas trlany
charaeteristiGof an inpacted nanral reef (includingsize)
nany different tlpes of
resourcesas the nan[a] reef. A large reef could furnisb
it could supPorta
habita6 and microhabitats. Placedin an appropriatelocatio&
invertebrates,tberebyprovidingfood for a
of algaeand associated
rich assemblage
numberof fish sPecies.
reefs,we might be
If we knewmore aboutthe productionof fish on artificial
replaceall of the lost resources'
ableto build a smalleranificial reef that wouldstill
207
Chapter 8
The biomassdensity(i.e.,weightPer unit area) of fuh is higberon artificial reefs
(1) fisb
than on mnrral reefs (Table 8-8; Asrbrose 1987a). If we assumethat
production per unit area is Proportioualto biomassdensity,and (2) large artificial
ree& will have the sameaveragedensitiesas the small artificial reeB surveyedby
!o
Ambrose(1987a),then a smallerartificial reef might suffrce.However,there are
data to indicate tbat either of thesetwo as$mPtionsare true' The smaller size
that an artificial reef canbe constnrctedto produceresources
estimatepresupposes
that
at a higber dersity tban the na$ral reef it replaces.In fact, it doesseemlikely
produced'
differentdesignfeanres of artifrcialreefsaffectthe amountof resources
potential
and that thesefeanrrescouldbe manipulatedto maximizethe production
of possiblerelationships(e'9"
of a reef. Someof the existingdata are suggestive
basedon
Secdon83.1 and Ambrose198?a),but theseare untestedrelationships
expected
densities"and there are no data on the amount of.productionthat couldbe
the
from a partictrlar design At this point, there is no evidenceto supPort
a nanrd
construstionof an artificial reef that is smallerthan the areaimpactedon
reef.
that
to build an'artificial reef
To insrre adequatemitigation' it maybe necessary
artificid reef on
is larger than the areaimpactedon a nanrralreef' Becarsean
the nanre of the fish
nrch a scale has not been buitt, it is diffigult to predict
very large artifrcid reef
comnunity that would developon one. Fish densitieson a
reefsbecausethe
would probablynot be as higlr as on the existingsmallerartificial
there is no information
area of attraction would be proportionately smaller;
if the artificial reef is to
availableon how fish productionmight vary' Furthermore'
about establishinga kelp
supportgrantkelp (see Chapter9), there is uncertainty
Giventhese
bed andthe kelp probablywouldnot coverthe entirereef'
208
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
rl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
T
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
Attificial rccfs
artiticialandnaturalreefs'
stoch"rJil:fi|o"
standing
Estimated
stocl ras cstlnrtcd by
slzc of rccf and biomassdcDsttyue fmn Anbruc (19&r.). ststdirg
C6." n"nt"at-r-ctt rcr: samplcd$ 2 or
nultiptyiug bionassdcasltyon I rycf b-y1b. ;1z"
"i-th3Ji.
rleosltyfor tbc sltcsms uscd'
bionass
3 sltas;to cstltDstsstandlngstochfor thcset;G, ti;;o"
-
Ana
(rra)
Biomass
BEttlnflCStandhg
Dalr;tty
(iil'T/ha)
Stor*
(Id:T)
Werun@unm_Biomass
Dauity
Stnding
Stock
(Mtfiu)
Urff)
AKNFICIALREETS
Tor:eyPincs AR
PcndlctonAR
Newport Bcach AR
IA Hartior Brcalrwater
outside
lA Harbor Breakcater
inside
King Harbor Breakwater
Hermosa BeachAR
Mariu Del RcyAR
Pitas Poht AR
Rincon Oil Islald
MEAI{ (SE)
0
0.000s
0
0.048
0
0.0001
0
0n8
2005
0.0R
0347
0.%2
0.061
0.ltf
0.ofi
0
0
0.012
0.621
0.tso
0.o25
0
0
0.005
0.&t
0J41(03{x)
0J1? (0.00s)
0I5o (0.0t7)
0.ln
05(B
L958
0.18
1.40
z.fi
581
0f65
0359
0.783
a.4n
tnL
4:t5
0.42.
3.86
o24
032
0.45
281
0244
0'252
0.la1
0.620.
0,2,r
2.2oJs)
0n
0.'{$l (0lf6t)
NATT,RALREETS
Marirc Strcct Rccf
LaJolla CorcRecf
Del Mar Rccf
BaraIGlp
hs Pulgs Rccf
Box Can)tm
San Onofrc KclP
MaiD (4-1)
San Onohe I(eIP
North (m2)
SanMatco KclP
a4.m
$Jn
$"m
16Jn
MEAN (SE)
4s540
0.174
0.164
0.ltt
37,36
I}.U0
t.162
0.r:n
2.m
0.1911
104.m
l- o2e8 n92
0.404r
23.00
3Lm
55Un
680
gu (n7u
0.0121
l- 0.012
0.0uJ
0.001
0
0
0
0J5t 1
Foff/
0.016J
0.193
0
0
0
e.058
t- 0578
o:ly2r
6l.8,v2
0.06?1
l-0.036 4J7o
0005J
0211
0399
0.495-l
0.%1 l- 0501
0.086J
'o3tl
4353
r2ffi
0.141
oMl
01
0363'1
TWo Man Roct
LagrrnaBcach North
Pclicaa Point
Point Vicentc
Don'tDir,eThere
Flat Rock
RiaconKclP
0.136r
F o2m
omJ
0:16o.us)
2A9
n6Mt
224
.s32003tv3)
32f2
0328
o.u6 l-0.s0 2w
0.m4J
0.m4
0.925
0Jr32(0J114) 3t3t e.m3)
I
Chapter 8
would be to build an
uncertaintiesabout artificial reeB, the conservativeapproach
reef' The MRC
artificial reef that is larger than the impactedarea of the nanral
for every t ha of
has recommendedthat 15 ha of artificial reef be constructed
a loss of 80 ha of
nanral reef i6pacted (Appendh p); sincethe MRC estimates
is recommended'
kelp dueto the operationof SONGS,a 12$haartificialreef
on artificial reefsmeansthat a large
The lack of informationaboutProcesses
should be viewed as
artificial reef used to.mitigate impactsto a nanral reef
it
sucha reef wouldbe appropriatemitigationbecause
experimental.Nonetheless,
if it (1) mimicstbe
is reasonableto expectthat it couldreplacelost reef resources
location' and (3) is
impacted reefs structure,(2) is placed in an appropriate
sufEcientlylarge.
8.3.3.2Out-of-kind
Unlikethesinrationwithin.kindmitigatiorr'thereisnoclearlinkbetween
to completelymitigatethose
the Bight-widelossesof fish and the sizeof reef needed
for developrngsucha link The
loses. Furthermore,thereis no establishedmethod
MRcestimatesthatg60.hahigb.reliefartificialreefwouldadequatelymitigatethe
derivethis estimateis
irnpactSof SONGSon midwaterfish; the procedureusedto
presentedin APPendixD'
t3.4 Cost
quarry.rockartificial reef near San
In general,the costsof corstructing a
Departmentof Fish and Game bas
Onofre are well known becausethe California
2r0
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
t
I
artifrcid rcefs
'tbeareabetween
recentlybuilt a numberof reefsin this area. To constructa reef in
DanaPoint andPendletonArtificiat Reef,tbe quarryrock would costaPproximately
$30/toninstalled(DFG,penozal communication)'
as well as
Of course,the costfor any specificreef will dependon its design
has been
location. Neither of the two artificial reefs proposedas mitigation
'high-relief' and "lowdesignedin detail" althoughthey are roughly describedas
have used
relief;' reefs. To estimate the approximatecosts of these reefs' I
an
PendletonArtificial Reef (PAR) as the basisfor comparison'PAR has "vetage
this to be a
heightof 43 m (Ambroseand Anderson1989);I coruider
marcimum
the height
high-reliefreef. In contrast,I considera low-reliefreef to be one-quarter
to constnrct
of PAR, and so it would use one'quarterthe amountof rOckneeded
PAR.
l
from 10,000u.s. tonsof quarryrock' The total areaof
PAR wasconstructed
3 ha; the rock
PAR, inctudingthe sandareasbetweenits eightmodules,is about
t
sametopographyas
itself coversaboutt ha. A high-reliefreef, constructedwith the
about 1O000tons
PAR and a maximumheigbtof about43 q would thereforeuse
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
It would cost$15of quarryrock/ha, costingabout$300,000/ba(or $12Om0/acre)'
reef recornnendedby tbe
18 miltion to constnrctthe 6&ha high'relief artificial
MRC asmitigationfor midwaterfisb impacs'
as much rock as tbe
A low-relief artificial reef would use only one'quarter
(or $30,000/aoe)' It would
higb-reliefreef, and so would costabout$75,000/ha
artificialreef recommended
costabout$g milrion to constnrclthe 12&halow-relief
OnofreKelp forestcommunity'
by the MRC asmitigationfor the impactsto the San
217
l
Chapter 8
reel
(Note: this cost does not include the cost of establishing kelp on the artificial
which could be an additional $1-2 million)
8.4 Impacts to soft'bottom communities
plains,
Ardfrcial reeft are almost invariablyconstructedon extensivesandy
viewed as
typically at great distancesfrom rock bottorn, becausethese areasare
modification'
being generallyunproductive,and hence most amenableto habitat
soft-bottom
However, artificial reefs could adversely impact the existing
beneatbthe
communitiesin severalways. Finq the infauna (organismsthat live
For most
surfaceof the sediments)directlybeneathan artificial reef will be buried'
this losswould
reeb tbe actual area of soft-zubstratecoveredis relativelysmall' so
reefs could
not be very greaf although the cgmulativeeffect of many artificial
wave and current
evennrally be substantial. Second,artificial reeB can alter
of the
patterns (Iurner d at.1969),resllting in changesin the pbysicalstrudure
sensitive)' There
nearbysoft-bottomhabitat (to which infaunalorganismsare very
on tbe srrrounding
is some evidencesuggestingthat the effectsof artificial reefs
($U norcd shallowsco-ur
soft-bottomhabitat may be very tocalized. Daviset at'
Artifrcial Reef in Table ceffectsup to 15 m from BureaucraticReef (TorreyPines
grain size or
1), but there were no measurableeffects on sand rippte Pattems'
predatorsassociatedwith a reef
organic carbonbeyondthe scouredareas. Third,
Finally' coDstrudion
may feed on the organisrnsthat live in the adjacentsediments'
suitablehabitat for flatfish and
of an artificial reef could resurtin the reductionof
potentially detracting from their
other fisb associatedwith soft-bottom habitats,
below under the general
populations. Theselast two possibleeffectsare discltssed
topicsofinfarrnalarrdepifaunalorganismsandfshpopulations.
2L2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
i
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
Artificid resfs
8.4.1Infaunal8nd epifaunalolganisms
were affectedby
Daviset at.(Lg82)found tbat only two taxa'both epifaunal'
from within 30 m of
BureaucratReef. Seapens(Stylatutoetongata)wereeliminated
grazi\gby reef-associated
tbe reef, and reducedin densityuP to 80 m away,due to
s DiopAra splendidissittuand D' ontata
fisbes. Tbe nrbe-dwellingpolycbaete
with distanceftom
experiencedincreaseddensitiesnear the reef' No relationsbip
category;in all cases'
the reef was detectef for anVinfagnal speciesor taxonomic
from the reefs was more
variability betweensamplescollectedthe samedistance
collectedat different sites
important than differencesbetweengroupsof samples
infaunal populationsare les
along traDsects. Davis et al.'sdata suggestthat
witb anificial reeB than large' sessileepifauna
sersitiveto disturbancesassociated
in SouthernCaliforniapermit
They suggesttbat the life historiesof manyinfauna
rapidrecolonizationofareasdisnrrbedbyreefcoDstructiotr.
Reef' conductedin
A similar snrdyof infauna aroundPendletonArtifrcial
Tbe effectof
in AmbroseandAnderson(1989'in prep')'
Fall 1986,is summarized
ornata was most obvious;Diopatra
the reef on the nrbe-dwellingworm Diopatta
For all other speciesand
occurredonly near the modules Qrcnonalobseruation)'
betweendensityand distanceftom
taxonomicgrouP$ no consistentrelationship
wereno consi$entdifferencesamongtbe
modulewasdetected.Furtberurore,there
insboreand offshoresidesof the reef'
transectsplacedon the uPcoast'downcoast'
doesnot dranatically affect infauna
suggestingthat cgrrent and/or spell exposure
may haveobscuredsomeeffects,but
densities. High variability amongreplicates
tbe effect of PAR on adjacentinfaunal
the data from this sildy suggestthat
densitiesis smdl.
2t3
Chaptcr 8
t.42 Fish PoPulations
Becauseartificial reefs could result in the reduction of suitablehabitat for
flat6sh, the constnrctionon an artifrcial reef migbt be expectedto bave a negative
reefs
effect on residentflatEshpopulations. Walton (1982)hasshorrnthat artificial
can actually enhancefladsh populations; however, his reefs were specifrcally
artifrcial
designedwith semi-enclosedstnrchres tbat are rarely incorporatedinto
not frnd
reefs. A zubsequentsnrdyby the WashingtonDepartmentof Fisheriesdid
placedin a
an increasein flatfish densitysurroundingconcretereefsthat were not
reef with the appropriate
semi-enclosed
Pattern(Hueckel1981). It seemsthat a
flatEsb
designfeaturesmay result in increasedflatEsh populations,but otherwise
populationsare not likely to be enhancedby anifrcial reefs.
virnnlly no
Exceptfor the sfirdiesby Walton andHuec;kelon fladsh, there is
populations'
infornation about the effect of an artificial reef on resident fish
the proportion of
Obviorsly, an artifrsial reef removessomesandhabitat; however'
that tbey would
habitat coveredby anificial reefs is so small tbat it seemsunlikely
fsbes'
significantlyaffecttbe overallstandingstockof sand'associated
areaby allowing
Artifrcial reefs could increasethe dersity of fish in a sandy
to occur in otherwise
reef-associatedfish that feed in soft'bottom habitats
of fish on an artifrcial
inaccessibleareas. Tbere are no data comparingthe density
the reef wasconstnrcted'
reef to the densityof fish tbat occurredin the areabefore
of frshin the areaaroundthe
Honrcver,DeMartini (1987)hasestimatedthe density
that extendedto 75 m away
PendletonArtificial Reef modules. on tno traltsects
closeto the modules'but no fish
ftom the modules,fisb were found on the sand
214
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
Artificial recfs
I
I
T
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
data suggestthat
were observedbetweeg 30 m and 75 m oD tbese transests' These
for a sandybotton
fisb density near the Eodules was somewhathigher than normal
but that this effect did not extend beyond 30 n'
85 Overall Evaluation
reefs for
There are still questionsabout &e suitability of using artificial
that occurson
mitigatioq mostly revolvingaround the amogntof fisb production
to produce fish,
artificial reefs. Artificial reefs have frequently been assumed
reefs in the
althoughthere have been no srudiesof frsb production of artificial
it is knorm that
marine environmentto substantiatethis assumption In facL
aboutthe productionof fisb
artificial reeft attrastfisb, but someof tbe assumptions
For this reason'it
on artificial reefsare questionableor scientificallyunsupported'
artificiat reefs(reviewed
is importantto considerthe evidencefor fish productionon
of thisevidence'I believe
in Anbrose 1986a,t987aandthis chapter).In the context
by settingconstraintson
that the uncertaintycan be reducedto acceptablelimi6
of the conceroscan be
how an artificial reef is usedin mitigatiou and that naDy
t
tracedtotwoprevailingasPec6ofmostartificialreeB.
I
I
I
I
I
I
Fist'mostartificialreefsareDotbuiltlikenaturalreefs.Quarryrockisthe
elsewbere'Instead'@rs' ships'
material of choicein Califorqiq but is rarely used
be used'and virrually
etc' 111ay
tires, appliances,concreterubble, discardedtoilets,
an artificial reef' There are
anypile of junk on the oceanbo$om canbe considered
from piles these materials
legitimate questionsabout whetber reeft constructed
prefabricatedree$' sucbasfiberglass
produceas manyfish as nanrralreefs. E-ven
not immediatelyobvioushow much
reinforcedplasticreefs,are so differentthat it is
215
I
Cbaptcr 8
t
constructed
fish production.theywillsupPorLFgrthermole,manyaltificiat reeB are
from most
as discrete Eodules or iD other configuratioDstbat differ markedly
fish canbe
natural reefs. Careful scientificsnrdyis neededto determinebow nany
producedby theselnnatural'artifrcial reefs.
reefs
Secondmost artificial reefsare small,muchsmallerthan mostnafirral
artificial and
that would be impactedby coastaldevelopmeut(seeTable 8-8)' Botb
proportion of fish
natural reefsprobablyattract fsh, and it seemsprobablethat the
for small reefs'
on a reef that have been attracted to tbat reef will be higher
on nautical
Furtbermore, small artifrcial reefs, which are almost alwaysmarked
artificial reefs
charts,attract fishermenaswell as fish. Fishermenare attractedto
efforts and the
becausea small reef size allovrsfishergrento concentratetheir
success' A large
higher densitiesof fish on artificial reeft provide higher fishing
would havelower
artifrcial reef would Presumablyattract fewer fsh per ha and so
becausethey might
frsb densities. Sucba reef might be lessattradive to fisbermen
the large size would
aot catcb fish as quickly as on a small artificial ree! and
large artificiat reef
precludeconcentratisgfishingmortality in a smallarea Thus' a
would rninimi-e the potential negativeasPecBof artifrcial
increasedfishingmortality imposedon fish populations'
reefsby mirrimizingtbe
Itscemsreasonabletoconcludethatanartificialreefthatperfectlymimicsa
many frsh as the nanral reef'
Danrralreef would, given enoughtime, producc as
statemenc givenenougbtime
Note that there are two qualiffing conditionsto this
andperfectlyrnimickinganailralreef.We}nowlittleabouthowmuchtimeis
pendleton Artificial Reef suggestthat 10 years or more
needed;observationson
a higb degreeof similarity to a
may be required before an artificial reef acbieves
2t6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
t
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
T
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Arti$cial rccfs
mimicking a Banral
similar natural reef (see Ambrose and Anderson 1989). As for
providing the physical
reef, the assumption is tbat function follows foru' i.e., that
of the resources
stnrcture on the ocean bottom will lead to the development
on an artificial reef are
Decessalyfor fisb production' and tbe resogrcesthat develop
same location' Agai&
the same as would have developed on a nanrral reef at tbe
will be to mimic an
this assumption seemsreasonable if not Proven. The challenge
of lost resources'
impacted nanral reef well enoughto provide in'kiDd replacement
rritigation' By
Arrificial reefs could be used for either in-kind or out-of-kind
(including fisb) are
making tbe leasonable assumption that similar resources
exactll' how much fish
produced on similar reefs, we can avoid having to know
it to be used as in-kind
production occurs on an artificial reef in order to allow
approach can be taken
mitigation. But there are definite constraintson how far this
reef for use as out-of-kind
Most importantly, it cannot be used to design an artificial
to know' in absolute terms'
mitigation. For out-of-kind mitigatioA it is necessary
trade off with the dissimilar
how many new resourceswill be produced in order to
is a seParate'difficult
lost resources. (The procedure used to decide the trade-of
reefs are discussedbelow'
probleuu) These nro possible applications of artificial
E5.1 In.kind replacementof reef resources
AttheSanonofreNuclearGeneratingStation,thereefresorrrcestbatareat
bed' specifically giant kelp' benthic
risk are the resourcesin the San Onofre Kelp
The main criteria for deciding whether it
algae and invertebrates, and kelp bed fish.
these resourcesare: (1) Are tbe
is feasible to 'se an anificial reef to replace
217
I
I
Chaptcr 8
(2) Can
resourceson artificial reefssimilar to the resourcesthat will be lost? And
theybe producedto equalthe losses?
reefsare
A number of snrdieshaveindicatedthat comnunities on artificial
weregenerally
similar to thoseon natlsal reefs. Algal and invertebrateassemblages
algaeand
similaron the two qpes of reefs(Ambrose1987a).Becausethe benthic
found olr an
invertebratesare sessileor sedentary,the production of individuals
on an artificial
artifrcial reef cansafelybe assignedto the reef. Producingglantkelp
and located
reef will be discussedin detail in Chapter9, but a properly designed
artificial reef shouldbe ableto supPorta kelp bed'
on artificial and nanrral
. For fistr, the speciescompositionof assemblages
artificial reefs'
reefs is generallysimilal, and speciesrichnessis at least as ligh on
(if any) of fish
As discgssedin this chapter and elsewbere,the absoluteamount
on the
produced on artifrcial reefs remains unknorvn'but undoubtedlydepends
that artificial reefs
specificreef and speciesof fish involved. It hasbeenestablished
hasalsobeen
someaspectsof fish production,suchas fish recruitmenL It
"ol-o
we do not knorvthe
establishcdthat masy speciesfeed on artifidal reef$ althougb
degreeto which growthmight be enhanced'
Theaboveinformationindicatesthatartificialreefscouldprovideresour@s
reef resources'but the question
tbat are nritable for in-kind replacementof natural
Mary of the differences
of fuh (urd otber resource)productionis stitl unresolved'
influence fish producdon are
between artificial and nanral reefs that could
is that frsh on artificial reeft may
dependenton the sizeof the reef. One difference
shorttime beforemovingto another
be more transieut,only stayingon the reef for a
218
t
I
I
I
t
t
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
l
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Arti6cial rcefs
found on artificial r'eefsare
site; in additiorUit is likely that many of tbe fisb
migbt be minimizedon a large
temporarily attractedto the ree&. This problem
the relative z)ne of attraction
ardficial reef, where the large size would reduce
yariety of habitatsmight increasethe
around tbe reef, and tbe size and gfeater
differenceis that predationmay
residencetime of fisb found ou the reef. A second
densityof predatorson these
be higher on artifrcial reefs becauseof tbe higb*
higb densitiesof fish on artificial
reefs. However,if attractionis contributingto the
of atl fish species'including
reefs,large artificial reefsshouldhavelorver dersities
is often higher on artificial
predators,than small reefs. Finally, fishing Pressure
As mentionedearlier' the
reefs, leading to increasedmortality.due to fishing'
densitiesoffishmightbeloweronlargeartificialreefs;combinedwithalargerarea
likety that fshing pressure(and
of hard substrateavailablefor fishermer\it seems
so per capitamortalityfrom fishing
fsh) woutdnot be concentratedat a smallarea'
shouldnot be higherthan on a nanrralreef'
aboutfish productionon
Theseargrrmentssuggestthat manyof the concems
a large,complexartificial reef'
considering
when
alteviated
be
may
reefs
artificial
result in lower productiou increased
The componeDtsof frsh production that
fishingmortality' sbouldbe no different
iucreased
especially
and
mortatity
natural
reef of the sasresize' Tbus' it seems
on a large artificial reef than on a nanfal
reef by buildinga largeartifrcialreel
feasibleto replaceresourcesfrom a natural
Ifadecisiontoreplacereefresources.byconsmrctinganartifrcialreefis
resolved'
location'and especiatlysizemustbe
made,manyquestionsaboutdesigu
Theconseryativeapproachwouldbetoconstrugttheartificialreeftobeassimilar
approachcarriesthe leastrisk to the
this
reef;
nanral
impacted
the
to
as possible
ztg
t
Cbaptcr 8
resourcts. It is posible that a more efEcient designwould produce the same
alrogat of resourcesbut allow tbi reef to.be smallerand lessexpensive;however'
there are two seriousproblemswith trying to identi$ zucba design. First' slanging
tlpes of
tbe configuratiouof the reef is likely to changeto somegnloown degfeetbe
resourcesthat develop on the reef, resulting is somewhatles similar resources
being produced. More importantly, mucb more precisequantitative information
by a
mustbe lnoum aboutthe resourceslost and &e resourcesthat will be produced
particular design- Both of theserequirementsare problematiq but it is clear that
affect
there is not enoughinforsrationto quantitativelypredict how different designs
a "more
resourceproduction (see Section83). Therefore, attemptingto design
state of
efEcient" reef, althougb possiblg is a risky alternativegiven our Present
processesthat
knowledgeabout artifrcial reefs. In fact, the uncertaintyabout the
be larger
operate on artificial reefs mean that the artificial reef should probably
than the areaof imPactedreef.
t.53 Out.of-kindsubstitutionof resourres
tnore
The ue of artificial reefs for out-of-kindsubstinrtionof resourcesPresents
aspess must be
diffictrlties than their use for in'kind rePlacenenl Two
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
completereplacement
consideredin order to insurethat the artificial reef provides
producedby an artificial reef
of lost resources: the absoluteamountof resources
to both the lost resources'
Erustbe.know& and an objectivevalue mustbe assigned
and the resourcesproducedby tbe reef'
t
absoluteamount of fish
The problems witb attempting to determine &e
above' For in'kind replacement
productionon aDartificial reef havebeendisstrssed
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
Attificial rccfs
a reef $31 rnirnicsthe
of resources,this problep can be circugyentedby building
whenconsideringthe
impactednahrralreef (and allowingan extramarginof safety
an oPtionif an artificial
appropriatesize). Replicatingan impactedhabitat is uot
accurateestinate of tbe
reef is to be usedfor out-of-kindmitigation Instead,an
Currently' there are Do
amonnt of fuh producedby an artificial reef is required'
with varyingdegfeesof
datato providethis information Severalqpes of estimates'
but thesewould comprise
inacanracy,could be attempted(see DeMartini 1987),
and Los Angelesare
little more than gueses. (Note: The PorS of Long Beach
useful inforsration in this
orrrently funding a project that will provide the first
yearor two')
regard,but the resuls will probablynot be availablefor a
Tbis problem is
It is atso dif$ctrlt to Placea value on nanrral resources'
No method for
intrinsic to any attemPt to provide out-of'kind comPensation'
on an artificial reef hasbeen
determiningan objectivevaluefor dissimitarresources
artificial reef will necessarily
devised,so determiningthe value of resourceson an
to this problemis described
involvesomesubjectivity.The approachwe havetaken
in AppendixD.
need to considerusing an
Avoiding resourcelosseswould eliminate the
amount of fisb producedand the
artifrcial reef, witb its uncertaintiesabout the
asout'of'kind mitigatioa At SONGS'
rclativevaluesof differenttypesof resources,
Short of shuttingthe plant
however,the resourcesare alreadybeing impacted'
resourceswitl be losL and some
dos,n or cosstructing cooting towers' some
In spiteof the uncertaintyabout
techniquemustbe usedto replacetheseresources'
provideoneof tbe few oppornnities
tbe amountof fish theyproduce,artificialreefs
resources.Restoringa wetlandcanalso
availablefor entrancingnearshoremarine
Chapcr 8
enhancemarine resources(see Chapter 10), althougbtbe tlpe of resourcesdiffer
from thoseproducedoDan artificial reef. Thesetwo tectrniquesil's 5imPlythe most
feasible methodsfor reptacingnearshoreresonrces. Much more information is
neede4 partiarlarly about frsh produstiou on ardficial reefs,before artificial reefs
shouldbe gsedroutinely as mitigatioo Nonetheless,they do provide an option for
minirni-ingtbe deleteriouseffeetsof coastaldevelopmenu.
m
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER9
rEt p BED CREAIION
Kelp
The operationof SONGSadverselyaffectsa portiou of the SanOnofre
affested
Bed (SOK); in this case,the impact is on'going' so restoration of the
kelp
portion of SOKwould not be suitable. Thus,if feasible,the creationof a new
becauseit
bed elsewherewould be the most straightforwardmitigation technique
would resultiD in-kind replacementof resources'
tbat a kelp bed be createdon an artificialreef
The MRC hasrecommended
Kelp forest
as io-kind mitigatiou for the impacs of SONGSon tbe San Onofre
the feasibility of creatinga new kelp bed by
cornmunity. This ctrapteraddresses
the technical
reviewing previous atempts to create kelp beds and disctlssing
kelp bed' (A
considerationsthat must be addressedin any project to create a
for in'kind
general evduation of artifrcial reefs, including artificial reefs used
chapterare: Most
mitigation,is givenin Chapter8). The major conclusioruof this
doesglow on many
attemptsto createnew kelp beds havefailed; however,kelp
a kelp bedfor mitigating
man-madestrucnfes. A corservativeapproachto creating
to existingkelp stands'
soNGS' effectswouJdbe to build tbe new bed adjacent
aboutMaaoqstis
Drawing from the experiencesof past attemPtsand knowledge
for succes'
biglogr, this approacbseemsto havea reasonablechance
9.1 Histora
habitats in Southern
Kelp beds are one of the most valuable marine
of their relative rarity (comparedto the vast
California; perhapsas a consequence
Cbaptcr 9
meny resource
expansesof soft bottom or eveu kelp-lessbard-bottombabitat),
valuable
managementdecisionshave implicitly assumedthat kelp habitat is more
(Maoocystis
s?r oth"r t!?es of habitats,partictrlarty sand habitats. Giant kelp
(Fosterand Schiel1985)'so
ffiaa)plants nlrnsslalqralr attachto a hard substrate
substrate'
mostattemptsto createoew kelp bedshaverelied on providingnew bard
possible6sans sf
Thus, it is not zurprisingthat artifrcial reefshavebeenviewedas
increasingthe areatextentof kelp bedsin SouthernCalifornia
reefs.
artificial
There have been severalinstanceswhen giant kelp has grown on
below,separatedaccordingto whetherthe kelp
Thesecasesare discussed
to establisha
recnrited naturally to the reef or was PurPoselytransplanted&ere
where kelp has
kelp bed. There are trumerousother cases,not disstlssedhere'
Harger 1985)
grown on man-madestruduressucbas chain nenvorls (Neushuland
andundenraterpipelines(Fosterand Sctriel1985)'
9.1.1 Natural recnritmentto artificial rcefs
on severd artificial
Giant kelp hasg5oumnatgrally,for a short time at leasq
supportedMaaoqstis for
reefs. A cal reef in ParadiseCove(in SantaMonicaBay)
to other SantaMonica
severalyears,evenservingas a sogrceof kelp for transplants
1958;by Decembcr'density
Bay artificial ree&. The kelp wasfirst notedin Ostober
had35-50planSuPto 3m tall'
wasas high asn,plan,g'lrm2.By April 1959,eachcar
since the car bodies
Thp kelp surrrivedfor a few years before disappearing;
there was Do zubsUate
disintegfated a short time after the kelp disappeare4
availablefor kelp to becomere'established'
24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
t
I
I
I
Kclp bcd creation
giant ketp
BureaucratReef (nearLa Jolla) alsodevelopeda nanral standof
construction'
shortly after its constructiorl Iu June 1975,only two monthsafter
juvenile MaaoqSis were observedon the reef. The juvenile planA were Bear
L976'juvenile
unattachedadult plana that bad drifted ogto the reef. By March
A dense
ocsturedin densitiesof up to 20 planu/mz (Daviset al' t982)'
Macrccystis
wasbuilt" The
zurfacecanoPyhad developedby July Lg76,L5monthsafter the reef
and hasnot
ketp bed persistedfor nro years,but wasdestroyedby stormsin 1978
plantsbavebeenobservedat Bureaucrat
becomere-established.Snall Maoocystis
but have
Reef in recentyears(Wilsonet al. tg84.Anrbrose,Perconalobseruation),
not persisted.
reef in
The most recent natgral recnritment of giant kelp to an artificial
(PPAR) in Ventura
SouthernCalifornia occgrredat the PitasPoint Artificial Reef
itself
established
County,whichwasconstnlctedin 1984.A $and of giantkelp had
were madeto
by 1986and basnow persistedfor severalyears. AlthoughattemPts
apparentlyrecmited
transplantgrantkelp to the reef, most kelP plantsin tbe bed
planS occurredalong the
naturally (Ambrose, pasonal obsavation).Most of tbe
trqnsPlantsites (Wilson
crest and upPer slope of ttre modulesand awayfrom the
in June 1987
and TogStad198?,Asrb:ose,pasonat obsewAion). Obsernations
were two or more yearsold
zuggestedthat at least someof the Maaoqstisplans
supPortgiant kelp;
(Wilson and TogStad1987). PPARwasspecificallydesigoedto
(only l1m deep)'is a
it is one of the shailowestarrificial reefsin southerncalifornia
reef to an existingnaturalkelp
relativelylowirofile reef,and is the closestartificial
of PPAR' it is
apParentSuccess
bed (between100to 500maway). In spiteof tbe
for only a few years'so it is too
worth noting that the kelp bed hasso far persisted
225
Cbaptcr 9
greater
early to concludethat the long-termpenistenceof kelp ou PPAR will be
than on the ParadiseCoveandBureaucratReefs.
One artifrcial reef off the coastof Central California (the San Luis Obispo
(but not
County Artifrcial Reei or SISCAR) has also supponed a kelp bed
Manocystis)for severalyears. Bull kelp (Nqeocystis)recnritedin very high uumbers
tbento SI-OCAR shortly after it was constnrctedin 1985,and baspenisted since
nanrral
Severalfactors probably contributedto its success.SLOCAR is closeto
propagUlesdid not haveto dispersevery far to reachthe
roclry areas,so Nereocystis
for
reef. The oce:lnogritphicconditionsin CentralCalifornia maybe more suitable
stonns
kelp growth than tbose in SouthernCalifornia' excePtfor severewinter
fish
(which do not affect Nteoqstis becauseit is an annual). Finally, herbivorous
are not commonin the area,and gfazingat SI-OCARwasinsignificant'
9.12 Tlansplants
The
IGlp bas been traruplantedto artifrcial reeft on numerousoccasions'
Monica Bay reefsin
first kelp transplantefforts to artificial reefswere to the santa
from herbivores
1959and 1961(Turnct et 41.1969).SomeplanS were Protected
eatenby herbivorous
after transplantationbecauseunProtectedplans were quickly
plantsnrnrivedonly a few
fish (opaleyeandhalfmoon);however,eventhe Protested
mayhavebeencaused
months. It wasthoughtthat the failure of initial transplants
tempennrre limitatioos by
by high water tempet?tures,but an effort to overcome
d at' (L969)believedtbat the
usingplants from Baja California alsofailed' Turner
of the water in Santa
ultimate failure of the transplantswas due to the nsbidity
availablefor photosynthesis'
MonicaBay,which severelylimited the amountof light
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Kclp bcd crcation
Masocystis oD
Considerableeffort was also sPe1t trying to establisb
giant kelp plants were
Pendleton Artificial Reef. Both adult and juvenile
1981' 1984' Califorqia
transplantedto PAR on severaloccasions(Wilson et al'
wasDeverestablished'
Departmentof Fisb and Game 1983). However,a kelp bed
by fish (Wilson et 4l'
Transplantedplants appearedto havebeen sevetely grazed
Althoughrecnritswere
1985),and other factorsmay havebeenimponant aswell'
adult planS have been
seep near transplantedadults, only occasionalsolitary
observedat PAR.
produceda selfThere has been one casein which uarsplant efforts bave
n t977' a transPlant
sustainingkelp bed oD an artificial substrate' Beginning
in the l'os AngelesHarbor
operation to an artificial substrateiu 9 m of water
four years'more
generateda kelp bed (Rice 1983)' Over a period of
successfuUy
PalosVerdesPeninsula)and
than ?00 adult ptana from Abalone Cover (on the
breahrater' The plantswere
Baja California were transPlantedto the SanPedro
nylon line and anchorchaiu' In
atgched to floats,whichwere in nrrn attachedto
reared in the laboratoryon twine were also
addition, young plans (Sporophytes)
establishedand growingalong
ransplanted. By Allgust 1978,kelp wassuccessftrlly
to the plants'lagtrrd recruitment
tbe brealurater. In spiteof stormandfisb damage
the bedwasapproximatelyt524 m
occnrredin the transplantareain lgTg-By 198?,
longand25mwidealongtheinsideofthebreahrrater(Rice1987)'andseveral
outerlns Angelesharbor'
smallerbedsbad developedin otherareasof
have been successful(e'g" the
Altbough transplantsto natural subsrates
AngelesBreakrvateroperationwasthe
PalosVerdeskelp bed restoration),the Los
self'sustainingkelp bed on an artificial
only transplantthat resultedin a persisten!
27
Chapcr9
manyreasonswhy the a$emPs to establisbkelp
substrate.Tbere are undo-ubtedly
on artificial reefs have failed; likely facton include low tight levels (due to depth
and turbidity), high water temPeratureand low nutrient availability, 8d grazing
in more detail in Sestion42;the published
pressure.Thesefactorswill be discussed
infotuation on the influence of these fastors has been reviewed in Ambrose
I
I
I
t
I
(1e87b).
t
There has been one attemPtto establishan ortensivekelp bed on a sandy
substrate. This project, conductedby Kelco under contract $'ith California
I
I
Departurentof Fish and Gane, focgsedon a kelp bed in SantaBarbara County'
Although successsee6s feasible at the Santa Barbara site, wbere the Channel
a
Islandsprwide protectionfrom largesvells and nanrralkelp bedsoccuron san{
kelp bed would be unlikely to sunriveon sandysubstntesnearSanOnofre'
92 Technical consider:stions
bcen
have
Data on the facton influencingkelp growtb' recnritmentand survival
(1985)'
compiledin Ambrose(198?b),and are reviewedin Fosterand schiel
when
If a kelp bed is to bc createdas mitigation,thesefacton Eust be considered
hcre' Instea{
the project is beingdesigned;however,thesedetailsar'enot reviewed
kelp bed are
general factors that migbt influence the dpamis of a man-made
to create kelp beds are
discgsse{ and some of the techniquesthat can be 113ed
briefly reviewed.
?23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
'
IGlpbcd crcation
and stability of kelp beds
9J.1 Pereistence
flucnEtions'and
Natural kelp bedsundergofrequentandsometimesefireme
have documented
local extinctionsare relatively cornmon A number of snrdies
(e.g-,Daytot a al'
thesefluctnatiors and attemptedto explaiDkelp bed dpamics
and complexity
19&t,Ebelinget at. Lg85,Harrold and Reed 1985),but the*divenity
predict the dpamics of any
of factorsinfluencingkelp bedsmakeit very difficult to
here becausea manpartiarlar bed. Tbe dynamicsof kelp beds are considered
bed
for mitigationshouldbe at leastaspersistentasthe
madekelp bed constructed
it is replacing.
with globalor
Ircal extinctionsof.Maaoqstbbedsare freguentlyassociated
4t' 1985)'
conditions(Daytonand Tegner1984'Ebelinger
regionaloceanograPhic
is little that canbe done
and so affecta largenumberof bedssimultaneously.There
man'madekelp bedwouldbe
to avoidwidespreadextinctionssuchastbese,and any
conditions'
aslikely asa nanrralbedto be affectedby generaloceanographic
and
of individualbedsundoubtedlyaffect their stability
However,characteristics
of factorsinfluencing
persistence.Daytond al. (lgg4) haveexploreda number
Theyconcludedthat relative
tbe patch dynamicsand stabilityof kelp comnunities'
(e'8".competitionfor ligbt
patchstabilitywasdeterminedby biologicalretationships
a glvenareaandphpical differences
and nutrients,sporedispersal,grazing)within
(e.g.,storms'wavesurge)betweenareas.Someofthefactorsthatmigbtbe
below'
importantare discussed
?29
Cbaptcr 9
4.2.1.1I-ocation
The location of z Mamcystk bed is importanu beds that are regularly
damage'
zubjectedto violent storns are obviorsly morc likely to experiencestorm
beds'
probably fluctuate more, and might be lesspersistentthan more protected
bedsthat
The kelp bedsoff the coastof SantaBarbaraCountyare an exampleof
for long
are relatively protected from stotms, and conseguentlyhave persisted
agoby
periods. (Note, however,that eventhesebedswere destroyedseveralyears
partiorlarlYheavYstorms.)
choiceof
If a kelp bed is to be qreatedasmitigationfor SONGS'impact'the
as closeto
location may be constrainedby the desireto producetbe new resources
a locationthat is
the impactedsite aspossible.Thus,it might be possibleto choose
of Santacatalina
more prorectedthan the san onofre reglon,suchas the lee side
san onofre would
Island or SantaBarbaracounty, but.creatinga kelp bed far from
San Onofre'
result in a signifrcantloss of kelp resogrcesin the regon around
local loss shouldbe
Becausekelp beds are relatively rare in this regioU such a
too closeto SONGS
avoided,if possible. Howwer, the createdkelp bed cailrot be
or it too will be impactedby the planr
I
I
I
T
I
t
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
t
Akelpbedmaybemorelikelytorecoverqui*lyfrompernrrbationsifithas
Most snrdiesof'Maooqstis
a high probability of receivingsPoresfrom otber beds'
on tbe order of a few rieters
dispersalhavereportedvery limited dispenal ability'
Dean and F.R Jacobsen'
(Andenon arrd Nortb 1967,Dayton et a1.1984,T,4.
230
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
IGlpbed crcation
with naturalrepersonalcommunication).Thrs, it seemstbere couldbe a problem
seedingof kelpbedsthat havedisappeared.
M@oqstis
thal under certaincircumstances'
Recentsnrdieshavesuggested
(D' Reed' penorul
spore dispersal may be greater than previously thought
et al' t985) and the
ammrmication). IGlp bedsin SantaBarbaraCounty(Ebeling
recoveredrapidly due to
california channel Islands(Ambrosed 'l1'.i\press) have
strudureshave
tong-distancecolonizationof Maaocystis.ID fact severalartificial
being locatedseveral
developedkelp bedsshortlyafter being emplacedin spite of
Ig7t,Davis et aI'
kilometersfrom the nearestkelp beds(Turner et oI. tg6g,Fager'
1e82).
at distant reefs are
The dispersal mechanismsleading to recruitment
nbouncers'(ketp plans that
probablyvaried. However,in the SanOnofre regioU
are attacbedtbat they
have so much buoyancyrelative to the rock to which they
provide a consistentinput of
bounce" along the oast) are commonand could
a kelp bed on an
recnrits to an isolatedreef. Itr fact, the problemof establishing
recnrit to the reef' but rather
isolatedreef maynot be somucboneof ge$ingkelp to
suchas fistr grazing' For
getting enoughrecnritmentto overcomeother facton
even6 at PAR (Calfornia
c*ample, there were a number of nanrral recruitment
but MasocySisDever
Department of Fish and Game,penonal communication)'
establishedon the reef'
recnritedin sufEcientnumbersto becomefirmly
Theseexamplesindicatethatlong.distancedispersalofMaoocystisis.a
infrequent'For example'the kelpbed
uormalphenomenor\but it maybe relatively
in 1980.Barn Kelp is quite isolated
at Barn Kelp, southof SanOnofre,disappeared
?31
Cbapter 9
from other kelp beds,and kelp hasnot yet re-establisheditself. It seemslikely that
loog-distancedispenal of.Mrctocystiswill evenhrallylead to the re'establishmentof
Barn lklp, but the distancefrom Barn Kelp to er6ant kelp beds has probably
prolongedthe period without kelp.
Proximityto kelp bedsmay alsoaffectthe succesof efforc to establishnew
kelp beds. Many of the attemPtsto establisbuew kelp beds on artificial reefs
appearto havefailed becausetransplantedkelp waseatenby herbivororsfistr' and
there was linited recruitmentfrom the manipulatedplants. Theseproblernshave
been implicated in the failure to the transplantattemPtsat PendletonArtificiat
Reef. Placinga newkelp bed closeto an establishedbedwould eliminatea number
any
of potential factors. Herbivorous fish would not concentrateas heavily on
supply
transplantedplanS becausethe nearbynailral bed would provide an ample
of food, and tbe naftral bed wouldprovidesPoresfor recnritmenl
for
Close proximity to a naftral kelp bed is probably not a prerequisite
close:o
establishinga neu/kelp bed,but it couldimprove&e oddsof success'Being
reducethe
an existingbed would enhancethe chancesof recnritmentand might
tbe stability of
intensity of fish grazingat the new kelp bed. It could also enhance
to more rapid re'
the bed by providing a nearbysourceof spores,which could lead
establishnentafter a local extinstion
4.2.1.3Substrate
Substratestabilitywillalsoinfluencetbepersistenceofkelpbedsbecause
a hard
plans (including thosein the vicinity of soNGS) require
most Macrocystis
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
a
Kclpbcd ccatios
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
l
sedimentmovemeDtcan
substratefor attachment. Heavy sedime1tationa1d/ol
coverhard substratesand reducethe areaavailablefor kelp.
when placingrockson
The burial of hard substrateis not the onlyProblem'
nsinkninto the bottom and
a soft-bottom,there is the dnngerthat the rocks will
aroundisolatedrocks
disappear. A number of snrdieshavedosgmentedscogring
of the rocks;this problemis mostsevere
that evenhrallyresultsin the disappearance
bottoms.
on unconsolidated
a
9.2.L.4Size
bedsto their variability
There havebeenno snrdiesrelatingthe size of kelp
it is reasonableto expectthat
or the probabilitythat theywill go extinct. However,
fluOuations' and perhapsmore
smalt kelp beds will experiencemore exgeme
for mitigativePurPosesis too
extinctions,than large beds. If a kelp bed ceated
couldlead to a lower longterm
small,high variability and/or frequentextinctions
averageofkelp resourcesin the bed thanexpected'
smallketp bed heavilythari a
In addition,it maybe easierfor frshto graz|a
largekelp bed (It Wilsou penonalcommunication)'
922 Techniques
Mostoftheeffortforestablishingkelpbedshasbeendevotedtodeveloping
and preparationare also important'
transplanttechniques.Ho*,ever,site selection
that
the removalof denseunderstoryalgae
Oue focusof site preparationhasbeen
I
Cbapter 9
(Ambrose and Nelson 1982"
could inhibit the recnritmegt of juvenile Macroqstis
preparatioahasbeen the
Reed and Foster 19&a). A more important foctls of site
1983)' Urchins
control of seaurchinsthat grazeon kelp plans (Wilsouand McPeak
are not likely to be a major problem on a new artifrcial reef,
but if necessarytbey
canbekilled or manuallYremoved'
Fisbgranng,partiailarlybyopateye(GireltTnigricans)andhalfmoou
damageto uansplantedkelp'
(Mdiafuru catifomiatb),canalsocarseconsiderable
Bay reeB'
damagedkelp transplantedto the SantaMonica
Fisb gfazing.aPParently
At Palosverdes'
PendletonArtificial Reel and the PalosVerdes Peninsula
gi[ nets' and fish
attemptsto control fish grazingincludedfish traps,spearfhhing'
efforts to control gt&xng
exclosures;noDeof thesemethodswere successful,and
wcre eveaually abandoned(Wilsonand McPeak1983)'
plans (sporophytes)to
Most projectshaverelied on traruplantingadult kelp
were usedto attactrthe
establisha Dewkelp bed. At PalosVerdes,two methods
plans wereattachedto floats tbat
plantsto the substrateflililson d al. LgTg).Somi
SmallerplanA wcre secured
were attachedto ancborchainsby 05-m nylon lines'
Other methodsfor transplanting
directly to tbe substratewith inner tube circlets'
placingboldfasain weigbted
adultstbat havebeendevelopedmorerecentlyinclude
meshbagp(Neushutand Harger 1985)'
uansplantedadult or juvenile
Although most kelp re$bration projectshave
(1981)usedembryonic
earlier life stagescan alsobe used' North
Maoocystisplants,
kelp bedsin southerncalifornia' but
Maoocy*issporophytesto attemPtto establish
attemptedto establishkelp on the
successcould not be demorstrated. Neushul
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
T
I
I
;l
IGlp bcd crcation
a solution containing
Pitas Point Artificial Reef by sprayingtbe reef boulderswith
boulders
beforethe'boulderswerepiacedin the water'but the
kelp gametopbytes
solutionwasappliedand no kelp plans
were appareutlytoo hot whengametophyte
were
nal commwication)' Microscopicsporophytes
wereproduced(J. Benson,pelro
LA Harbor @ice
outplantedas Part of the effort to establisha kelp bed in tbe
life stageshavenot
1983). As witb mostrestorationattemPts,outplanr usingearly
in the harbor' it is not
had suitable controls,so altboughadult plants did gfow
possibleto knowwhethertheycanbe attributedto this technique'
I
923 Costs
I
on tbe techniques
The cost of creatinga new kelp bed depends,of course'
kelp bed is createdas
and intensity used to establishthe kelp. When the new
effortsshouldbe madeto
mitigationfor ongoingimpacts,asin the caseof SONGS,
the net lossof resources'
establisbthe bed as soonaspossiblein orderto minimize
scale'suchaswith PAR' it
Suchan effort would be labor intensive;evenoDa small
large'scalemitigationproject'
could cost hundredsof thousandsof dollars. For a
be severalmillion dollars'
tbe costof activelycreatinga kelp bedwouldprobably
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
that a kelp bed be createdon a 12$haartificial
The MRC hasrecommended
size would cost about $9 million
reef (section 833.1). A low-relief reef this
(Section83.4),inadditiontothecostofactivelycreatingakelpbed.
235
I
Chapter 9
93 SummarY
so there is
The rcchniquesuied to transplantFant kelp are well'establishe4
term' However'very
little doubt that a kelp bed canbe establishedover the short
California' despite
few new,self-sstaining kelp bedshavebeencreatedin Soutbern
atteEPB to establish
all the artificiat reefs that havebeeu constnrctedand all the
a new kelp bed as
kelp on artificial strustures. Thus, any attemPt to create
involved' The
mitigatiou tnust reco grln that there is considerableuncertainty
know that it will'
problem is not whether kelp wilt grow on artificial reefs-we
qu have that kelp will grow on a
Rather, the problem is how mucb certaintywe
to provide general
pasigdat reef constnrctedfor mitigation we know enougb
be confident about
gUidelines,but tbere remains too much uncertainty to
predictionsof kelP growtb.
orperimental
PreviousattemP6to establishkelp bedshavenot incorporated
or failure, so cause(s)of the failurescannot
designsthat would help evaluatesuccess
previous atteEpts provides
be determined. Nonetheless,an evaluationof these
kelp bed creation Most artifrcial
someinsightinto tbe importantfastorsinfluencing
have been placed too deep for
reeft (which were not designedto have kelp)
water (e.g, SantaMonicaBay). Most
Magocystis. They havebeenplaccdin turbid
limits the nanrrar dispenal of
artifrciar reeB are small and isolated, whictr
the ga tg probtem (becaue
Maooqstis A the reef and migbt *acerbate
macroalgaeis not anailablenearby)'
herbivorotrsfish concentrateon the reef and
to the absenceof kelp on artificial
These conditions have probably conUibuted
to createkelp beds'
ree6 and strouldbe avoidedin future attempts
236
I
I
T
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
l
I
I
TP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
IGlp bcd crcatior
to create a
Despite limited successin the Past, it should be possible
kelp bed under tbe proper conditions' Fosterand Schiel
persistent"self-sustaining
and pbpical
(1985)note that timing of placement,proximityto nailral kelp stands'
of a kelp forest
relief appearto be partiorlarly imporrint for the rapid development
'seeded"with
be
should
reeB
that
zuggest
also
Tbey
reef.
artificial
oD an
rtarious
soonafter placement,andmayhaveto be manipulatedat
Maoocystisspores
reef adjacent
times (e.g.,removegrazersor sessileorganisrns).Placingan artificial
First' sucha location
to an existingkelp bed wouldprovidenvo importantbenefis'
for kelp growttrand
conditionsnecessary
would be likely to bavethe oceanographic
storms)' Second'
reproduction(e.g.,adequatelight, nutrien6,andProtectionfrom
well as biomassfor
the nanrral kelp bed would provide a sourceof sporesas
vicinityof the San
herbivorousfish. In addition,if the newkelpbedis createdin the
wouldbe closeto the lost resources
onofre Kelp Bed,the new ketp bed resources
(i.e.,it wouldbe nearlyon'sitemitigation)'
of kelp bed that
As witb artificial reefs,it is necesar)'to determinethe tlpe
lost kelp resources'Two
mustbe createdin orderto achievelBVocompensationof
of kelp and the size
variablescould affect the sizeof kelp bed needed: the density
by a one-for'onereplacement
of tbe bed. If the lossof kelp plans is to be mitigated
a smaller'but more dense'kelp
of plants,itwould theoreticallybe possibleto create
dersity of kelp at a site are very
bed. However,the processesthat determinethe
not be certainthat kelp densities
complex(seeTechnicalRepon K), andonecould
the areacoveredby kelp may
would remainhigb over the long term. Furthermore,
in kelp beds tban the number of
be more imponant for the organismsthat live
to base the decisionabout
plants. Tberefore,it would be most appropriate
on the sizeof thebed'
completecompensation
237
I
I
Chaptcr 9
In mary areas,including the region around San Onofre, the availability of
nritable hard substrateseemsto limit the size of kelp beds. However,not'all
t
availableDanral substrateis coveredwith kelp, so the area coveredby rock would
haveto be largerOan tle areaof kelp needed.There is alsoucertaioty aboutbow
T
I
I
Buch of a reef designedand built by nan will be suitablefor kelp, and whetherthe
kelp communityon an artificial reef would be asproductiveor diverseas a natural
a
community. Finalln there remahs someuncertaintyabout being able to create
self-zustainingkelp bed as discussedin this chapter,eventhougbI haveconcluded
kelp
that a properly designedand locatedreef bas a good chanceof developinga
larger
bed. Theseconsiderationsindicatethat an artifrcial reef would need to be
. tban the areacoveredby the lost kelp resourcesin order to be reasonablycertainof
providingadequatecompensation
the
There are no scientific data that can be used to determinehow large
judgement
artifrcial reef needsto be. Rather,the sizeof the reef mustreflect a
that
about the importanceof the variousuncenaintiesinvolved. The MRC decided
Since the
a 15:1 ratio would be appropriarc for SONGS (see Appendix D)'
reef size is
estimarcdloss of kelp bed area is 80 ha, &e recommendedmitigatiou
120ha
?38
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
CHAPTER 10
RESTORATION OF COASTAL WETI"ANDS
effests
Tbe SanOnofre NuclearGeneratingStationwill not haveany direct
provide in-kind
on wetland habita6. However, wetland restoration could
wetlands'
replacementfor somefish speciesimpactedby SONGSthat utilize coastal
out-of-kind
Except for these fish species,wetland restorationwould constinrte
mitigationfor SONGS'imPacts.
in
In this chapter, I review the general value of wetlands,partiortarly
or out-of-kind
SouthernCalifornia,and discusshorpwetlandscouldprovidein'kind
I
with respectto the lossesresultingfrom tbe operationof SONGS'
compensation
wetland
stepsfor completionof a successful
also examinesomeof the Decessary
in Southeru
restorationproject, and discussthe poteutial for wetlandrestoratioB
California
are valuable
The tnajor conclusionsof this chapterare: Coastalwetlands
agenciesto restore'
habitats, and tbere is a major effort by state and federal
could provide indegradedwetlandsin Southerncalifornia wetland restoration
for the mostPart it would
kind mitigation for a few speciesat risk at SONGS,but
a restoredwetland
constitute out-of-kind mitigation As out-of-kind mitigatiou
also provide important
would produce marine,resources'including fish; it could
asd valuable aestheticand
habitas for endengeredspeciesand migratorybirds
alreadybeenmadefor most
educationalresourc€s.Becauserestorationpla$ have
wetlandthat couldbe restoredas
wetlands,it maybe difficult to find an aPProPriate
Huntington BeachWetland
mitigation for SONGS'effects. The portiou of tbe
Chaptcr 10
of this
owuedby SoutbernCaliforniaEdisonis one alternative;altboughrestoration
wetlandis technicallyPossible,a numberof obstacleswould haveto be overcome
the
before it could be applied as mitigatio! for SONGS,including determining
amountof cedit to be assignedfor the restoration
10.1 Value and use of coastal wetlands in Southern California
which
provide'
The value of wetlandhabitatsstes$ in part from the functioru they
include (Adanus and Stochvell1983): (1) Hydrologicfunaiotts' including
For example'
flood reduction, sborelinestabilizationaod groundwaterrecharge'
storrnsand
wetlandscan function as bolding basinsthat con6ol flooding during
root systemsof
reduCeerosionfrom runoff by temporarilystoringsurfacewater' and
(Thayeret al' 1978)'
the marshvegetationtend to bind sedimentsand retard erosion
uPtake' As
(2) Waterryality impwement from sedimentacsretionand nutrient
sedimentsare
runoff water passesthroughcoastalwetlands,curent flow slowsand
improved by the
deposited,thus increasingwater quality. water quality is also
settling' absorptior\
removal of nutrients througb phpical Processessuch as
chelatio4 aFd
filtration, and chemicalprocessessuch as cbemicalprecipitation'
from the
(3) Foodcluh s&tpPort
exchangereactions@ourneand Wolfgang1983).
important fish and
provision of habitat and food, especiallyfor commercially
the mostproductivemarine
shellfish. In gened esfirariesand marshesare among
material from vascularplans
systemsbecauseof the addition of primary organic
beween marine and
(Thayer et a1.1978). coastal wetlandsare an interface
wide variety of microhabitaSthat
terresrial envifonmentsand tpically piovide a
rangeftomemergentvegetationtotidalclreelsandcharrrrels.
240
I
I
I
T
I
I
T
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
t
T
I
t
t
Re$oration of coastalwetlands
(Figure 1G1)'
The extent of coastalwetlandsin Catiforniais very limited
mudflats' bays'
Before 1900, there were about 380,000acres of salt marsbes'
105'000acres
lagoons,slougbsand esnrariesalongtbe Californiaco:NL Only about
greatest;lessthan257o
of wetlandlsmain. The lossin SouthernC,aliforniahasbeen
in Sorensen
of the acreagepresentiD 19m remainstoday (USFWS!979, teponed
in the state
and Gates 1983). More thzrt60Voof the coastalwetlandsremaining
Cornmission
havebeen severelydegraded(California CoastalTnte Conservation
is very small (onuf er
1975)and southerncalifornia's sbareof undisnrrbedwetland
al. 1978).
States,coastal
In contrastto the broadcoastalplainselsewberein the United
confinedto Dalrow
wetlandsin SouthernCalifornia are small and discreteand are
(7*dher 1982)'
river valleys that are separatedby coastalhills and mountains
whichare suessfulto
Additionally,tbe semi-aridclimateproduceshlpersalinesoils'
wetlandsdiffer from
vassnlarplanS (7*dlet 1983). Since California's coastal
for different reasons
wetlandsin other parts of the country,tbey may be valuable
estimatesfrom Mugu
than tbose cited for wetlandsin general. For examPle,
to wetland
I agoonin Southerncalifornia indicarcthat produetivityis low compared
(Onuf a al't978)' Onuf
areason the Atlantic 9d Gulf Coastsof the United States
and SoutbernCalifornia
et al. (1978) suggesttbat the critical naluesof Ccntral
from any exceptionalrichnes
coastalwetlandsderivefrom tbeir rarity rather tban
very important as habitag and
of the systeuls. Soutberncalifornia wctlandsare
feedinggroundsforendengeredwildlifeandmigratingbirds@otand1981).ID
resourcesbecausethey are
addition, tbey are valuable educationaland aesthedc
oPensPaoe,usuallyclosetourbanareas'ttrathasabundantwildlife.
241
I
I
G
uJ
ChaPtcr 10
:
:
E
uJ
TE
TE
E
u,
(,
E
2
u
TE
o
z
E
=
<a
!
!
!o
I
o
o
G
o
(B
E
Ea
6
o
gr
a
O?g
o:
gJ
t
.E
=
TE
z
l
F
E
U
99
a5
z
ll
tr
f-
z
o
G
b
b
z>
TE
tt
;t,
o
=
-o
o
€
=
(!
o
tr
L
o
=-;a
-
u,
th
IEfrHg
E=
-v,
u,
;g
P
*?
3=.
|r|tr
z(r=
ta
o
(J
B
u,
\
;- -ar a
<
58=
e
tt-a
v
a1;
FT
grg
J>
Our
90
==
gRFSRF
6
H
U'
o
(.,
U'C
\
.(
6
\
I
o
b
z
I
v
6
>E
a<
{.
a,
()
=<
:3
z
o
C)
=>
>cl
=3
>U'
=
o
Fi
a
242
r!(D
NR
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
gliliiii:gil
Efr
c
u,
I
I
I
E;lil:!iii
JX
6>
a
g,
o
o
(t
E?
g
I
:Q
J
+O
G3--
gl
tr
s=Eg: g A zo
o;
F<
tt Eo
le
3
Et
lr
?Ei
P-E-E
(9
=
o
o
o
t
o
t
t(9-
G
tA
(s
o
rE3
u,
o
(,
I
tt
c
-
b
I
I
II
' l xu,
Ful
o
b
I
!
|l,
G
_.i.iidri_.iGi
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
T
I
T
l
I
T
Rcstoratiu of coastal
SoutberACaliforaia bals, esnraries'Earsbesaad tidal creels and chennels
are utilized by a variety of fish sPecies(Table 1D1). The most abundantsPecies
include topsmelt,arrow gobies,california killifis[ shinerPerch,'diaEoDdturbot,
stripedmullet, and Pacifrcstagbomsarlpin There havebeenfew estimatesof the
densitiesof fish in SouthernCaliforniacoastalwetlands,but Allen (1982)e$funates
a total biomassdensityof about75 kg/hain Upper Neuport Bay. (For comparison'
tbe biomassdensityof benthic fub on nangal reefs sampledby Ambrose[1987a]
rangedfrom 86to 9}lkg/hq with a meanof 327kg/ba[N= 16reefsJ.)A few of the
speciesthat utilize wetlands,such as California halibut and shiner perc\ are
valuable commercialor sport fisb species.However,the primary coutribution of
Catifornia coastalwetlandsto fisberyvaluessee6s to be tbe provisionof food to
higber trophic levels,includingterns,beronsand other fishes(7*dler and Nordby
1e86).
Most of the fisb speciesthat are found in SoutheruC-aliforniawetlandsare
young
not strictly wetland-dependent.Manyfish speciesscboolcloseto shore'and
(onuf a a/'
fisb maybe svept into lagoonsandtidal channelswith 1fosiasemingtide
risk of
1978). Althougbthesefish maybenefitfrom fastergrounhratesand a lower
not utilize
predationin esnraries,theywould almostertainly surviveif they could
that are tnrly
esnraries(Lenantonand Potter 1987). However,there are somefish
cheekspotgobies
dependenton wetlands. Speciessuchas &e arow, shadow,and
wetland habitats'
and tbe lougiaw mudnrcker spend most of their lives within
halibut' Recent
wetlandsalsoappearto be essentialnrsery groundsfor california
by the Marine Reviewcomnrittee (Allen et
worh includingshrdiescommissioned
andlagoonsin
aJ.Lg} ),hasindicatedtbatjuvenilehalibutare commonin bap
I
I
Chaptcr 10
Table 10-1
spocicsthgt stre sampled at
The ocgurrrncc of fish spcciesin coastal wetlands la Southcra Crliforaig. Inctuded arA indicatcs abundaa$ P indicates
st least two sitcs orwcne prescnt as llraac. R indicstcs rarq C inaicatcs conmon; r
j;dd;
I
lndicatcs rcsidcn4 n indicatcs
lrrvs.f
Juvcnllcs; tndicatcs
prescng - lndicatcs not caugb3ln sanples.
DUnter:f.
COI\'MONNAIi,C
topsoelt
specklefin midshipman
bay blenny
Califoraia hdibut
Pacific sardine
Pacific staghornsotlpin
California toungrefsh
California killiftsh
barrcd surfpcrch
pile surfpcrch
walleye surfpcrch
black pcrch
shiacr pcrch
deepbodyanchovY
slough anchorry
northem anchovY
arrow gobY
longiawmu&uclcr
checkspotgobY
shadowgoby
opaleP
stripcd mullst
diamond ttrrbot
sponcd turbot
horayhcad turbot
spotfrn croalcr
whitc croalcr
Califonia corbiu
quecafish
Pacific mackcrcl
kelp bass
spotted sandbass
barrcd sandbass
California barracuda
bay pipefsh
spccfbd salddab
grunion
MUGU
IAGooN1l
COT.oRADO
Lacoox3
BAt'
A'
A
A!,
AI.IAIIEIM
UPPER
NE1VFORjT
BAY5
TuuAl.lA
Esm;en:6
A
A
R
;
A
pl
A
R
A
R
ct
R
c
:
on
c",
c
cp,
R
c
:,
R
c
A
c
R'
R
c
o
:
R
T'
R
ct
c
c
R'
c
R
Ar
R
c.r
c3.l
RJ
Rr
R
nj
R
c
c
pl
A
c
c
c
c
c
c
R
R
:
c
A
A
A
pl
R
R
:,
;
R
R
R
c
ni
nj
.pt
pl
R
:
R
R'
cp,
ct
c
c
R
Rt
pl
R,
R
:
R
:
a al.tgls;s Allen 1982;6z'sdlet
, oouf ard e'amneo 1983;r onuf cr eL ttrg;! A[en ard Hora 1gr5;' Klingbcil
andNordbY19t6
2&
t
I
I
l
R
R
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
l
I
I
t
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
Rcstoratio of coastalsetlands
and
Soutben California,but extremelyrare alongthe opei coast(seealsoKraner
Hunter 1987).
of imrertebratesoccursin the soft'bottom
A rich and produstiveassemblage
shrdies'
habitatof SoutbernCaliforniawetlands.Combiningdatafrom a nrmber of
7*dlerand Norby (1986)rePorttbat morethan 75 speciesof im'ertebratesocclltred
in wetlandsinclude
in the TijuanaEstuary.The mostcommoDbenthicimrertebrates
(1987)
bivalves,polychaeteworu$, gastropods,ad decapodcru$aceans' Ouuf
dat4
sampled invertebratesin many different habitaS in Mugu Lagoon; his
of
sruunarized in Table 1U2,indicatesan averagebenthie invertebratedensity
samples'
about 1500/mz. Although smatlgastropodswere not abundantin Onufs
tbey can reacb extrenely high densitiesin somehabitac; for example"4ssiminea
or morein
califomica ztd Cerithideacalifomicacaneacbrcachdensitiesof 10001m2
the compositiooof the
coasal marshes(7*dler 1982). As would be e:cpected,
varies?mongwetlands;for example,densitiesof common
inverrcbrateassembl4ge
Benthic
invertebratesin MuguI agoonandTijuanaEsnrarl'aregivenin Table 1S3'
invertebratesare an importantsoulcleof foodfor birdsthat usewetlands'
Table 10'2
Mugu Lrgooo' Mcan
Abundsnce of bcotbk brcrtcbntlE ln tbc astcls la of
'J'71. Taxononic
(lwD
rt
dcustties rrc ror .II rl|a"r".tt nportcd by onuf
(198/)'
Onuf
il
prcscntcd
c.tcgoti.s gftcr Ouuf; indivtilual tsn lrc
MEAl.t DENSITY(No./M2)
Larce worn-likc
Smill worm-litc
Largc gasnopod
Snall glstropoa
Biwlrcs
Largc cnstaceans
Small crustaccans
Saaddollars
474
516
2,
185
TOTAL
1556
n5
Lt2
74
,
245
Cbapt€r 10
Table 1(}.3
Abundsrcc of uost somno. bcnthic ilrcricUratcs Et Mugrt Irgmu
(frou Pacrson 1!175).
and liiuana Estualy
Dmlrn (No./Ml
CottruoNNAr||E
MUCUIAGOON
TuuaxeEsruarY
Bivalws
C4ptonyacalifomica
Prototlws stotnhea
Sotguinobiotufralli
Tageluscalifomiouts
Falsc oya
Littlcncck d"Purplc-hinged d^Jacknife cl"-
273
59
{l
9
35
76
14
Decapod crustaccans
C.allisnssacalttoniozsis
Ghostshrinp
88
Sanddollar
37
a
35
31
Echircdcrrs
Dqfuestqsstias
All othcrs
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
t
TOTAL
102 Potentialapplicationat SONGS
103.1 In-kind rcplscementof resources
provide
A number of frsh speciesare at risk at SONGS. Sincewe{ands
rePlacement
habitatsfor fish, wetland restoratioucould Potentiallyfurnish in-kind
likely to incur the
of fisb lossesat soNGS. However,manyof the sPeciesthat are
wetlands'
gteatestlosses,suchasqueetrfuhand kelpfish'are trot abgndantin coastal
a6
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
Resto'ratioaof coastalwetlan&
I
I
suchas
Most of tbe comYnelcialot sPortfish specigsthat are at risk at SONGS'
in
Califoraia cofti!4 kelp bass and yellonfin croaker, are also rarely found
t
wetlands. Nonetheless,some of the speciesat risk at SONGS (Table 1&4)'
coastal
including the arrow goby and diamond ftrbot, are often abundant in
I
I
wetlands. Out of 27 speciesidentifredin Table 1&4 asbeingimpactedby SONGS'
in
15 are reportedto ocgly in wetlands. Sevenof the 15 speciescan be common
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
be
wetlands,and three species(arro* goby, diamondturbot aDd toPsmelt)can
these
abunda*. Restorationof wetlandscould provide in-kind replacementfor
species.
wetlandsalsoprovidehabitatsfor nrmeroussPeciesof marineinvertebrates
providingin'
and somealgae(7*dler 1982). However,there is little Possibilityof
conuastto
kind replacementof invertebratesand algaeimpactedby SONGS' In
during
fisb whictr are highly mobile during their lifetimesand can utilize wetlands
onelifestage'benthiciurlertebratesandplantshavelimitedmobilityafter
are
setlement and have specializedhabitat requirements. wetlaod conditions
do not occur
unique,andthe invertebratesand algaeimpactedby SONGSgenerally
in tboseconditions.
rralue'
Thus, restoringa coastalwetlaudwould provide someitr-kind repliacement
are impactedby
but most of the speciesof im,ertebrates"algac, and fish that
tbat are impactedby
soNcs do not occurin wetlands. A few of the fisb species
have relatively low
soNGS are abundantitr wetlands;bowever,these species
impactsfrom SONGS'
economicvalue or ale likely to experiene relativelyminor
as northern anchovyand
Someof the speciestbat are courmogin wetlands,sucb
clear that restoring a
white sroaker, are Dot wetland-dependent'and it is not
wetlandwould enbancetheir populations'
247
l
Chapter 10
Table 1G4
Ilst of specicsof lisb that are er risk pt SONGS and/or occur tn Soutbcra Califorde coastsl
C ndi33t33 sontlon ead A lndicatcs sbuldsDt, bsscd on rbundanccs ln thc Evt
;ctlud;.
rrtlands suEE rizcd in Tablc l{FL
SPECIESATRNil(ATSONGS
hrPtaNTlossoF Ir{flaNrLossoP
EGGS,IARVAE&
Jurrym.es
Jurrym-es&
I,SSIN
tr(EI,PBEDS
ADULTS
quecnfish
whitc croaler
kelpfsh spp.
California gnrnioa
black croalcr
Califoraia corbina
c.hcelspotgoby
recfEnspot
arron, goby
jactsnclt
shadowgoby
diamoad nrbot
C.aliforuia alingfirh
nortbcra anchory
Pacificbuttedsh
urallcp srfpcrch
pllmdncroatcr.
whitc scapcrch
salcna
barcd saDdbass
tclp bass
spo6n croalcr
topsnclt
Pacilic clccttic cel
bladc pcrch
rahboe'pcrcb
California shccphcad
x
x
x
x
x
x
yc
F
;c
;c
;A
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
248
yc
1A
r
x
1c
x
x
xA
x
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
T
Rcstoration of coastal wetlaods
1tA22 Out.of-kind substitutionof rcsourees
for tbe effectsof
wetland restorationcouldbe usedas out'of'kind mitigation
of lost resources
repliacement
SONGS. Althougb resour@agenciesprefer in-kind
1986b),out-of-kindmitigation
to out-of-kindreplacement(usFws 1981,Ambrose
replacementexiss' or when
canbe consideredwhenno feasiblemethodfor in-kind
region and the substinrted
the lost resogrcesare abundant elsewherein the
of these criteria apply to
resourcesare fiIre and valuable(Grene[ 1938)' Both
a restoredweilandwould
wetlandrestoration- Althougbboth an artificial reef and
losses'for the most part
provide a limited 2itlount of in'kiDd replacementof fisb
fish' Furthermore'tbe mostthere is no feasiblemethodfor producingmid-water
are abundaut $rougbout tbe
impacted species,queenfisbasd white 6oaker,
are raxeand valuablehabitaa
southirn california Bight,wbereascoastalwetlands
in SoutbernCalifornia.
value' As noted by
southern california wetlandsclearly baveotceptional
from their rarity' California coastal
Onuf d al.(1978), muchof their value comes
species' Foufteen of tbe
wetlandsare important habitatsfor many endangered
as rare or endangeredby the federal
speciesthat use coastalwetlanis are listed
Canadagoose'Anerican peregfine
and/or stategovernment'includingthe Aleutian
and Ligbt-footedclapperrails'
falcon, Bald eagle,California leasttern' California
Californiablackrail"CaliforniabrownpelicarlSarrtaBarbarasParorv'Beldiqg's
Morro Bay kangarooraL SantaCruz
mouse'
hani'est
marSh
salt
sparrow,
sarrannab
gartersnake(usFws 1979'National
Francisco
San
the
and
salamander,
long-toed
bird speciesare residentsi!
endangered
Audobonsociety 1986). Three of the
249
Chaptcr 10
SouthernCalifornia salt marshes. The Light-footed clapper rail builds floatable
trests
nestsout of cordgrassin the low intertidal marsb,BeldingissavannahsPiurow
in
in pickleweeddominatedEidma15bareas,and the California least tern lests
plant
coastaldgnesand feedsin marshes(7*dler 1987).In addition,an endangered
species,the saltmarshbird's bcak,gf1n$ only in a nalro\rrmne atthe upper
limit of
I
I
I
I
I
tidal influenccin sdt marsbes(7*dlet 1982).
t
for
Catifornia's coastal wetlands provide imponant wintering habitat
in tbe
migratory birds. Approximatelyfive'Percent of the waterfowl population
I
pacifrcFly*ay inhabit Califoruia coastalwetlandsduringtbe mid-winterand almost
geese
100percent of the population of Canvasbackducksand Brant and Aleutian
wetlandsare
usethe wetlandsat sometime duringtheir annualmigfations. Coastal
grounds
alsousedasstagingareasfor migratorybirds enrouteto andfrom wintering
Audubon
in the Central Vallen Mexico,and Central and SouthAsrerica (National
Society1986).
not
valuesthat are
southern california coastalwetlandsalsoprovidesignificant
qpacewith
directty tied to natgral rcsources. Becausethey furnish open
resogrces' In
abundantwildlife, wetlandsare naluableaestheticand educational
becauseErost are
Southern Califoraia wetlands are important 35 oPen space
of proposedwetland
zurrogndedby denselypopularcdlrban areas. A ngmber
the Ballona Wetland
restoration projects in Southera California (for example,
for public
restoration Plaq National ..{udubonSociety 1986) include Prograns
are also important research
accessand educationalcenters. coastal wetlandareas
are not ctearlyunderstood
sites. The impactsof disnrrbanceon wetlandfunstions
restorationprojectsbasedon
and the criteria for determiningthe zuccesof wetland
t
I
I
T
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
T
I
t
t
I
t
I
I
I
t
Rcstcation of coasal wetlands
wetlands are a diminishing
wetland firnetious are not yet established- coastal
need for continued
resour@ ia the United States and there is an immediate
researcbto addresstheseproblems (7*dlet 1983)'
103 Successful coastal wetland restoration
successof any wetland
Two factors that are irrportant in promoting the
the monitoringProgram'
restorationprojectare the designof the restorationand
is difficult to evaluate
Tbe successof past wetland restorationprgjects
plans were not cleady
becausein most g:$es the objectivesof tbe restoration
the permitting Processwils
outlined and the projectswere not monitored after
1982'Quammen1986'
cornpleted(Josselynand Buchholz1982,Rae and Cbristie
projectsin California
1988). There havebeena nrmber of reviewsof restoration
are variable,often becausethe
and the conchsionsabout the uumbcr of srccesses
and Joselp 1986'Race
criteria usedto judgesuccessdiffer (ftace 1985,Harvey
1936,Quarnmen19S6,lgSS,SanFranciscoBayConserrrationandDevelopmeut
the questionof how effectivelythe
commission1988). Few snrdiesbaveaddressed
restoredwetlandsreplacedthelostfrrnctionsandhabitatsofdestroyedordegraded
I
sites(Quammen1988,Zp'dler4 alt988}
I
I
I
I
103.1 DesigningwetlandrestorationproJects
I
the goalsof
wetlandresbrationproject canbe designed'
Beforea successful
The successof local Projests'partiorlarly
the project shouldbe clearlyidentified.
ptanshavealready
small areas,will be enhancedif regional
thosethat encompass
Cbaptcr 10
beendevelopedto identify the habitatsand ftEctionli that are mostimportantin the
ecoregion Ios Angelesand Orangecountieshavedevelopeda regionalplan that
stressesthe importanceof preservingthe region'spresentwetlandsand tbeir value,
and increasinghabitatsfor endangeredspecies. It also sgtlins5 site-specificgoals
and guidelinesfor the designof restorationprojects (State CoastalConsewancy
1e82).
There are a number of important fastorsto considerwhen developingthe
designof a restorationprojecr Thesehave been outlined in detail elsewhere
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
(Williams and Harvey 1983,7*dler 1984)and only a few of them are mentioned
T
here.
I
Onceregionalgoalshavebeenestablishe4the plan for a specificsite should
Dot proposeto fulfill all the regional.goalsbut shouldcapitalizeoo thosethat are
I
I
I
I
nanrral attributes of the site (Zcdler 19&4). Therefore, before a site plan is
developed,the site shouldbe carcfullysaurpledto determineexistingresoucesand
wetland functio1s. This is partiorlarly important not only for developnentof the
plan but also for srbscquentdeterminationof the successof the Projecl Specific
specieggfouPsof speciesor wetlandfunetionsshouldbe targetedfor enhancement
maximize
so that the designcan incorporatethe proper mix of habitat tyPesto
as inresourcerralues.For exanple, the designof a wetlandrestorationto be used
of fish
kind mitigation for fish lossesat SONGSshould naximizc the asrount
habitat (e.g.,tidal creeks,channelsandponds)'
site'
Particutarattention shouldbe paid to the toPogfaphyof tbe restoration
the
The period and dep& of tidal inundation are major factors determining
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
Rcstoradon of coastalwctlands
by toPogfaPhy
disuibutiou of wetland orgianisgsand are greatly influenced
can have
(WilliaEs and Harvey1983). Smallchangesin elevation(05 to 1'0 foot)
factors affeeting
irnportant effects on plant cogg16ities (Zedler 1984)' Other
very seasonaland
hydrologt are also importanf In SouthernCatiforniarainfall is
with little fresb
large inputs of fresh water can occurover a short period of time'
is extremely
water input during the rest of the year. As a resgll tidal cirqilation
imFortantto coastalmarshes(Z.edler19847*dler a al' 1986)'
alsobe carefully
The potential for sedimentationat tbe restoredsite should
(7*dler 1982)' Natural
considered. Wetlands are latural sedimeut sitrl6
be invadedby marsh
sedimentationcasbe usedto createmudflatsthat will" in time'
can also fill in
vegetatioD(Williams and Harvey 1983). However,sedimentation
are dredgedduring restoration'tbey
tidal creeks,channelsand pools. If c.hannels
can
may require subsequentdredgingto be maintained. AD additional Problem
t
t
are tolerant of the
ariseif dredgespoilsare left oDtbe wetlandsite' Few species
unvegetatedfor years
extremesalinity of the dredgesPoilsand tbey often remain
I
zone that will separate
Another important designonsideration is a buffcr
the surounding arca Buffer
tbe envirosmentaltysensitivewetlaod habitat from
they restrict public ac@ss
zonesare particrrlarlyimportantin lrban sreasbecatse
(sorensen
zurroundingS
and canprotect wetlandspeciesfrom impactsof unnatural
spac provideswetlandwildlife
and Gates1gg3,7*dler 1gg4).The additionalopen
t
t
I
I
I
t
(7*dler 1984).
.withhabitattbatcanserveasarefugeduringpeakfloodingperiods.
E3
Chaptcr 10
103, Monitoringretland rcstorstionprciects
The success
of wetlandrestorationprojestsqrnnotbe determinedunlessthey
are carefully monitored. In the past,monitoring of restorationsfor mitigation was
rarely required as a part of the permit requirements (San Francisco Bay
Conservationand DevelopmentCommission1988). Monitoring requires a longterm, welldesigned snrdythat must be started before the restorationbeeinsand
comparedto reference sites (Qtranmen 1986, 1988, 7-edleret al. 1988). It is
important that quantitative data be collectedbefore restoration using the some
methodsand sites,and over a sgfEcientlylong period of time, so that a statistically
and ecologicallymeaningfulcomparisoncatrbe madewith post'restorationdata.
Monitoring studiesmustbe long-terrr becausecoastalmarshesare dynamis
are commou(7*dler et a1.1986). A monitoring
systeg$and natural disnrrbances
program must continue for several years to determine the resPo$e of the
communityto a wide rangeof environmentalconditionsthat caDvary seasonallyaod
emorg years. High annualvariability in communitycharacteristismay be the rule
'averagestates'(7*dler et
to determine
and datafrom manyyearsmaybe necessary
ar. 1988). If vegetationis plante4 or new speciesare introducedor encouragedto
reproduce
recnrit to the site, it may take yearsto determineif theywill successfirlly
and if populationswill becomeself-zustaining(7*dler et a1.1988)' Many curent
(R'
wetland restorationproposalsin California require a 5 year monitoringperiod
cy,pasonal communication)'
Holderman,California StateCoastalConserrtan
year to
Sampting at the restoration site should occgr at least once a
haveto
determineannualvariability. However,different -peciesor firnctionsmay
I
T
I
I
l
l
I
t
I
l
I
t
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
Rcstoration of coaSalwetlas&
by factorsthat
be monitoredat differenttimesduriDgthe yearif tbeyare influenced
problems zuch as the
vary seasonally. If monitoring occursat least annually,
t
invasionof exoticspeciescalrbe corected'
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
the most visible
A monitoriqg program shouldnot focus on only a few of
species)'but
wetland characteristics(zuchas dominalrtvegetationor endangered
t
I
I
I
I
I
to be
of characteristics
mustsamplea wide raggeof ecoqntemattriburcs' The list
of ecorystemfunctioD'
monitoredshouldincludethosetbat are importantindicators
(Tndlet 1984)' For
as well as .thosetbat tbe public views as important assets
soils'
toPograPhy'
example,datashouldbe collectedon charaderisticsof hydrologr'
at the restoration site
trutrient dynamicq algae,vascularplants a1d cogsumers
(7*dler et 4t. 1988).
of a restorationpnoject
f033 Deternining the success
is ctrrently highly
Evaluatingthe suces of a wetland restorationProject
(t1.1988)' The dercrmination of wbat
controversial(referencesin Zedlet et
objectiveqthe criteria rsed for
constitutesa'success'will dependon the Projea
omparisons. Projects should be
evaluation,and tbe referene sircs used for
a high potential for achieving
consideredsuccessfulif the restoredwetlandshows
natrrralfuggtionalatuibutes(7*d|ete'4t.1988).
funetionsof southeracalifornia
7*dler 4 at.(Lg88)havedevelopeda list of
tbe similarities betweenthe
salt marshesthat sbould be assesedto determine
"reference"masbes' In panicular' they
restoredmarsband nanrral' gndistgrbe4
E5
Chaptcr 10
have allowed wetland restoration to be used as mitigation for Port development
projects. Because of the high demand, most stritable wetlands bave already been
claimed, and land ownership is a major factor in determiniqg the feasibility of using
wetland restoration for mitigation-
I
I
l
I
t
10.4.1Availability of wetlands
Becausewetlandsare in higb dernandin SoutheruCaliforniq the availability
of a par-ticularwetland can change rapidly dependingou recent political or
commercialevents. Wetlandsthat could potentiallybe availablefor restoratiouas
mitigation for SONGS'impactsincludethe BallonaWetlan4 SanDieguito Lagoon'
San Diego Bay Salt Worls, and the Tijuana Bn rr],; however,the anailabilityof
thesewetlandsis far from certain It is alsoposible that unanticipatedcveatswil
tbere is only onewetland
makeother wetlandsavailablein the future. Nonetbeless,
that would certainly be availableto SCE for restoration' the Huntington Beacb
Wetland.
The factor of land onmershipfavorsthe HuntingtonBeachWetland as tbe
most likely wetland to restoreas mitigtion for SONGS'efrects The Huutingon
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
Beac.hWetlasd was once part of an o6ensivewetland rystemthat coveredmore
than 2950acres. Most of the systemwasdestroyedby developmentand agtriorlnrre'
t
A plan to
but 115 acresremain in the HuntingrcnBeacbarea(Coas et al. L987).
the
restore a$-acresite in the remainingdegradedwctlandwasdevclopedtbrougb
I
I
I
I
city of
combined efforS of the Catifornia State Coastal Conservancy'thG
oumersof
Huutinglon Beacb,the Huntingon BeachWetlandsCorsernancy,and tbe
the marsbwas
tbe property (C,oatsd a1.1987,Eliot and Holdetlpn 1988),and
258
t
l
I
l
Restoration of coastd wctlasds
land in the
opeDedto tidal excb2ngein February 1989. SCE owns 14 acres of
to any
degraded Huntingon Beacb Wetland that had not yet been committed
I
partianlar use, and which could Potentially be restored for use in mitigation'
I
property
The wetland area that includes the ?S-aererestoration site and the
east' and
oumedby SCE is bounded by tbe Talbert Channel on the nonheast and
owned land
the Pacific Coast Higbway on the southwest (Figge 1C2); privately
thtough the
separatesthe 25-acre parcel from SCE s land. Three city streets Pass
and there is
are& A higb levee separatesthe wetland from tbe Talbert channel
of the
culrently no surface tidal flow into SCE s proPefly. Tbe wetland character
and seasonal
site is maintained by periodic fresb water runoff and the tidal
are degfaded
fluctuations of the local water table. However, wetland functions
when it was
compared to functions in the salt marshesof the historic wetland area
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
t
t
t
I
t
linked to the oceanby tidal flushing (Coas 4 al'7987)'
wetland species
Pickleweed is the dominant plant in tbe wetland area Other
grassand fleshy
fo'nd at tbe site include sickle grass,cattail, alkali bulrusb widgeon
condition'
jaumea Few speciesof water birds are able to use tbe site in its present
the winter' None of
Only a few ducls, shorebirdsand beronsbave been seendgring
in soutbern california
the three endangered bird species that are often fousd
clapper rail and Belding's
coastal wetlands, tbe California least ter!' Ught'footed
in i15present condition (CoaS
ssyannahsparow, has been observedin the wetland
SCE property in tbe summer
et at. Lg87). There is no open water habitat on the
on the site is coastal sdt
months Qtenonat observation). Most of the vegetation
area is'coveredwith roads
marsb (Figure 1G3). However,much of the salt marsh
of SCE s ProPertyis salt flat'
and tire tracls (Figure 1e4). Furttrermore, about hatf
E9
Cbaptcr 10
Flgure1(l2
A HuntlngtonBeachWetland: ownenshlp.Ownershlpot the Huntingrton
BeachWetlandls dividedamongpubllcand prlvateowners.
f,$l!! Conrrvrdon
m
$@
lI
hdutltLl En ?gYPto.lscdon
tgyPtod./corlt wdotl
*En
t*SrwlngConrnllarl
tand use plan ot the clu ot
B. Gertltlecl]3nd use Plan. The coastat
TiJ[',x*sf"#gEil:#d;'""lli"::]:'m"*miisiononoet
i
Restoratioo of coastalwetlands
I
I
T
o
6
o
I
I
J
o
|!
l!
t0
o
E
-o
o
q,
6
o
t
sgF
I
I
I
I
t
o
o
oo
<t
G
HE E
?Et
3b E
G
o
et) C)
rr-t
J
t\l
!l
3
I
ii
()
EEE
Ea$
HgE
btP
E=E
5FE
=FS
ffr
\'
ii dlrr
t,
r.l c,
J3l{$
l*,
rl
i'
l''rI
'I
lit r 'i\
ril
l1i1tlI
(i:r;
,.\
,\1,
'1,
t;,'
ll bi
iel
'!i
ii
.)l
qir
3t
-l
;lri
t:
cal
;
(g=
=os
ilr l
I
\
I
l:'::l A
I
t\
x
11,
GG
FI
Isll tET
ETs
t
6
tt
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
t0
=
o I
zuJ C)
g
uJ
x
:
i
.4
II
I
J
C'
G
o
o
ol
,;i
ll
=
r\-
{!i#1,,
rlltt
,rl
lri'rl
#
liN
i
'ilu, ffi {,i\\
.N li,',r
,.1
ir't
ill,i
'\xr;
,l'r
.i :'
rl
_t
I t,
\t' d'Zffii. [],
i
r
ti
ri'l
',-rl
,
\r:
d 'lr
\ffi
.!lr'
I
rU\
',-,1
'l i
\tl
ti
tl J\
.\
. : I ll,\
t,
ll
I
!l ,i , ,
d 1r',1
r f?
rt
ti {-
gl
l ,
Il
o1
l,rgil
I
,
r' rr j,
.t\
il
,r.
lrr l ti:t
r
1'l\
\lt
i
I
i
11r
llli
ir
''l,r{d
FgF
d
Eg€
EEE
sag
8a
7=.
?
v6
C)
6
uP
r:
r.t
gE
o
- ?
-o
.
tr5E
P;E
g -ox
"a-
3€*
ttuJ=
trE
9(9
5_
-J
<6
9t
g6
+6
>3
5
C)
-==:
6i
"*-
UJ
=
z
=t9
UJ
go
a
=
2
z
z
o
3l)
7i
l,l
gl
o
'uJ
,''
I
-
,)
?51
gJ
o
I
!!
C)
r
t
Chapter 10
is
with virnrally no vegetation(Figure 1G3). It is clearthat the valueof the wetland
low comparedto what it would be if it wasrestored.
Before restoratioa,the channelqntem in the ?S'acrerestoration site also
pool
dried up by mid-5|lmmerdltring low tide, althougb one moderately deep
wben
retainedwatcr and supporteda few fish. During a frve'monthperiod in 1979'
was
culvertswere installed to oPenthe restorationsite to tidd flushing the area
reportedly a productivewetland. Ponds,which were sirmpledby the C-alifornia
Departmentof Fish and Gameat that time, containedopaleye,kelp bass'California
and
halibut topsmelt, shiner sur$ercb, stagborn sctrlprq California killifish'
The
yelloufin goby. (No data are availableon the abundanceof thesespecies')
channelsalsocontaineddenseclarnbeds(Coats4 aL 1987).
levee tbat
Tbe zi-ase site was restoredin February1989by removingthe
channelsin
separatedthe areafrom Talbert Channelto restoretidal flow. Existing
and create
the marshwere enlargedto increasethe areaof mudflat and low Earsh
to insuretbat
openingsinto the flood control channel Severalpondswere ceated
fish' The
the marsh retains somewater dtuing low tide as refugia for resident
cndangeredbird
restored area should eventuallyprovide babitat for the three
gfeatlyenhanced'
species,fish and iwertebrates;the nalueof the wetlandshould.be
that (1) the area is
Pretiminarymonitoring resulg (Gorman d at.1989) indicate
(2) the divenity of marine
undergoingrevegerationwith wctland plant specier
agd the abundanceof fish
invertebrateshasincrcasedgfeatly,(3) both the diversity
(4) tbe number of bird
are increasingwith time sincetidal ftushingwas restore4
increased geatly following
species aod individual birds using tbe wetlands
wetlandrather thanupland
restoration,and a higberproportion of the birds are
I
T
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
T
I
I
T
I
I
I
.lJ
t{
9{
Eg.g'
E;U
iEs
IE
H
6 ED(,)
e;g
PgE
EEE
EEA
t
I
I
t
L
#H
gE€
r Er9
gH;
+,
to
Fr
*)
E;g
>y
IU
u)
;=E(sE i3 D
-Ea9
I
'l
t
t
t
I
f
t'
*ta,
tse-g
EEEH
€EEg
;ilF
FggE
I
I
I
t
6IF
6=o
263
l
I
I
T
I
I
I
l
l
t
t
I
I
T
t
t
t
t
I
l
I
I
I
l
I
t
t
I
I
I
t
t
Rcstoratiou of coastal wedads
usingthe area
Californialeasttcrn hasbeensuccessfully
species"(5) tbe eDdaqgered
for foraging,&d (6) water quality is near nornal Theseresuls indicatethat the
value of this wetland has alreadybeen enbanced.In the future, cordgrasswill be
planted in the low marsh zone and pickleweedin tbe middle and higb z)nes'
will
monitoring will continue, and work on displaln for an interpretive center
continue(Gormanet al.t989).
Althougbno restorationplan hasbeenproducedfor the lA.acre site owned
by SCE, its restoration could presumablybe similar to tbat of the Zs-acresite'
Removingthe leveefor the Talbert Channetwould providethe SCEsite with tidal
by additionaldegfadedwetlandacreage'
flow. Althoughthe two sitesare seParated
value
tbeywould be connectedtbrougbthe flood channel"whicbwould increasethe
for
of both sites. Becausetbe SCE site is so degrade4there is great potentid
enhancingits value. If.the intent of the restorationis to maximizeiD-kindmitigation
scE site
for fuh lossesat soNGS, tben the anount of openwater habitat at the
the
shouldbe maximized. If out-of-kindmitigation is acceptable(or preferable),
site' with
restoration plan could be quite similar to the plan for the 25'asre
species.
naximum habitatfor endangered
I
AltbougbSCE'slandintbeHrmtin4ionBeacbwetlandhastherrndeniable
SONGS'effectsis
adrantageof alreadybelongingto SCE,its valuefor mitigating
t
t
to
limited by severalfactors. First' it is not clearthat SCEs'holdingis largeenough
Of course'
provide completecompensationfor the fish lossescausedby SONGS'
wetland' sincemuch of tbe
SCE migbt be able to acquireadditional land in tbe
it may Dot be able to
renrainingdegradedacreageis prirately owned. Secon4
lossestbat wouldneedto
provideenougbopen-waterbabitar Most of the resources
t
I
l
265
'l
Cbapter 10
I
be mitigarcdby wettandrestorationinrolve fisb species;tbe restoriationplan for tbe
?S-aqeparcel doesnot emphasizefish, and it is likely that SCEs parceldso is not
t
ideally nrited for providingfish habitar
T
I
I
I
If the HgntingtonBeachwetlandis to be restpredas nitigation for SONGS'
effests, the value of the restoration will be set by the constraina of the site's
includingits size. It would be possibleto manipulatethe abundance
characteristics,
of sometlpes of habitatsin order to maximizetbe habitat value of the site, but it
will not be possibleto create some habitat t)?es. For example,the amount of
standingwater on the site could be changedto zuit tbe partiarlar nitigation need'
but a relativelydeepembalmentcouldnot be created.Thtts,the challeugeis likely
to revolve around tbe questionsof (1) &e designof the wetlandthat will produce
the ma:rimumresourcevalue that can be obtainedon the site, and (2) how mucb
resourcelosscanbe mitigatedry that partiorlar restorationdesign
Although SCE does not already owu land in other potentid wetland
an
restoration sites, the restoration of otber coastal wetlands could also be
is
acceptablemeans of mitigating SONGS'impacts. Thc San Dieguito Lagoon
wetland'
larger and contains more oPen water than tbe Huntington Beach
t
I
I
I
I
I
mitigating
Restoratiouof the SanDieguito Lagoonwasuntil recentlyconsidercdfor
this proposat
developmentin tbe ports of Long Beachand Ios Angeles;however,
t
possiblethat the
wasrecentlyrejectedby the california coastalcommission,so it is
has an area of
lagoon would be availablefor restorationby SCts Thc wetland
I
I
,l
I
I
the san Dieguito
about 120 acres,with a water area of about 33 acres' Thuq
and resourcesthat
Lagoonwould be able to provide substantiallymore resources
Beacbwetland'
are more similar to the impactedresourc€sthanthe Huntington
I
I
I
t
t
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
t
I
I
t
I
l
Restontion of coastalwetlan&
A nrmber of otber ooastalwetlands,including Ballona Wetland and the
Tijuasa Esnrary,niglt potentiallybe consideredfor restoration There is alreadya
plan to restore 175 acresof the Ballona lVetland as part of the mitigation for a
separatedevelopmentproject (Mea L988),but it night be possiblefor SCEto sbare
sone of the costsandreceivemitigationcredit
t0,42 Costs
Costsfor restoringwetlandsvary tremendously,in Part dependingon the
partianlargoalsof the restorationand the pre-existingconditionof tbe wetlan4 but
targelydependingonwhetherthe landmustbe acquired.
The recentlycompletedrestoration of,9.7ha (25 acres)at the Huntington
Beach wetland cost $488,000,or $50,000per ha The proposedrestoration of
BataquitosLagoon(as mitigationfor developmentin the Portsof Long Beachand
Los Angeles)is expectedto aostabout $15 qillion for 160ba or $94,m per ha
Restorationcostscould!s highsyif the costof acquiringthe land is unusuallyhigh'
For example restoring 18 ha in the Huntinglon Beae.hwetland migbt inrrolve
purchasingthe land for $25Q000/haand restoringtbe wetlandfor $55,000/ha'for a
total cost of $5J;rnilliqq or $305,000per ha If land aoquisitionoostsare bighsl'
tben of coursetbe total restorationcostswiUalsobe highsl'
105 Discussion
SONGShasno direct effecton wetlandbabitats. Wetlandrestorationcould
during
provide iD-kindmitigation for speciesat risk at SONGStbat use wetlands
I
Chaptcr 10
t
pan of their life. In large part, however,restoriDga wetlandwould constinrteoutof-kind mitigatioo Restorationof wetlandhabitatasmitigationfor SONGS'effests
t
would necessarilybe off-site.
Wetland restoration may be an acceptableEeans of mitigating SONGS'
impactsbecarsewetlandsare rare and extremelyvaluableresourcesin Southern
California However,this method of mitigation preseutsa number of problems.
One potential obstacle,disanssedabove,is the possibilitythat a suitablewetland
here.
cannotbe acquiredfor restoration Two additionalproblens will be discussed
The first, tbe use of out-of-kindand off-site mitigatio+ involvesthe philosophyof
mitigatior5 while the secon4 the vduation of dissimilar resources,presentsa
technicalchallenge.
105.1 Outof-Hnd/otr-sitemitigation
The curent mitigation philosopby of federal and C,alifornia resource
agenciesdeemstbat out-of-kind,off-site mitigation is generallythe least'preferred
altetaative. This philosophyis basedon the aryBmentthat overallProiectulrP4cts
wiU be rynt-y"d
I
whenmitigationproducesresonresthat are assimilar aspossible
to the lost resoprces. The acceptanceof out-of-kind resourcescould be risky'
especiallyif the impactcd resorucesare highly value4 rare, and/or subject to
substantialcumulativeimpacts. on the other han4 out-of-kindmitigation can be
acceptablefor commonresourceswith relativelylow resourcerralue(USFWS1981),
suchasperhapsmid-waterfish.
268
l
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
T
t
I
I
l
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Rcstoration of coastal wctlands
of
Off-site mitigation could result in an inequitablegeographicdisuibution
resources.It seemslikely tbat a restoredwetlandwould be far awayfrom SONGS
(especiallyif tbe HuntingtonBeachwetlandis chosen)and therefore,the impacted
area would locatly have a net loss in resourcevaluesin spite of mitigation' The
importanceof the distancebetweegthe impactand mitigationsitesmay depeudon
the specificresourcesthat are beingmitigated. For example,for wide'rangingand
in
ubiquitousspecies,suchasthe mid-waterfish speciesimpactedby SONGS,a shift
the geographic distribution of resogrcesmay not be importanf But local
replacementmight be essentialfor mitigatingthe lossof importantspecies,sucbas
grantkelp, that are relativelyuncommo1or patchily distributedin the area of the
impact
I
to
Witb resPectto SONGS'imPacts,wetlandrcstorationwould be used
the
mitigate fisb (primarily mid-waterfish) losses. Because,for tbe most Part'
t
baverelativelylow tesourc€value,andarewide'ranging
impactedfisb are cotDmOD,
resources'
and becauserestoring a wetland would enhancerare and valuable
I
SONGS
wetland restoration would be an appropriate techniquefor mitigating
t
t
effects.
I
restoration
Perhapsthe largesttechnicalproblem inherentin rsing wetland
axevery different'
as mitigation for soNGS', effectsarisesbecausethe resources
I
t
I
t
10.5.2Valueof a r:storeil wetLand
a value to dissimilar
Ideally, an objective, quantifiable metbod of assigning
the resourcesthat are
resourcessbould be devised. In the caseof SONGS,
witb
associated
impactedare primarily rrid-waterfish. (Kelp bed fish, invertebrates
l
Chaptcr 10
irnFacte4but the MRC recommendsthat these
"15s
i-p"cts be mitigatedusing other methods.) Restoringa degradedwetlandwould
kelp beds,aad giaat kclp are
pro.vide wetland resource$ including associntedspecies of birds' fish and
iwertebrates. For L00Vocompensationof lost resources,tbe rralue of the lost
resourcesmust balance thc .nalue of the restoration
(Note that, from the
perspectiveof mitigationbookkeepiq&the nalueof tbe restorationis the inseasein
wetland resourcesover the resourcsspresentbcfore restoration) Yet how can
thesevery different tJpesof resourcesbe equated?
There presentlyis no conse$;usregardinga tectrniqueto be usedfor valubg
resources,especiallywhenthe resourcesare dissimilar. Severalmetbodshavebeen
the valuc of wetlandhabitats(e.g.,HEP, McCollum 1988;
developedfor assessing
and
.Adamgsprocedure,Adamusand Stoclsrc[ 1983),but noneis very satisfactory
noneis tailored for coastalwetlandsin SouthernCaliforaia(7*dler 4 aL L988).For
SONGS,wetlandrestorationmaybe mostueful for mitigatingthe lossof mid'water
fisb, but to our knowledgethe value of mid'water frshpa sa has never been
assessed.To datg' mitigationfor projectsthat adverselyafrectmid'warcr frShbave
focused on providing similar habitat nalues. For example, a modified HEP
procedgrewasusedto determine(1) the rralucof open-waterhabitatthat would be
lost as a result of port developmentin Los Angeleq and (2) the amountof open'
water habitat that would need to be createdin BataquitosLagoon in order to
in the
compersatefor this loss. In this casg the dwelopmentProjectwould result
habitatlossof mid-waterfish habitatrather than directlycarsingfish mortality,so a
of midbasederaluation couldbc gsed: Howerrer,SONGSwill not causethe loss
have to be
water fisb habitat, so the valuesof tbe mid-waterfish themsclveswill
determined.
I
I
I
I
t
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
t
li
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
l
I
I
t
Rcstoratioa of coastaluretlads
If wetland restorationis choseuas a techniguefor mitigating someof &e
effectsof SONGS,it seemslikely that determini4gthe amountof credit that should
perhaps
be assignedfor a partiarlar restoration project will be diffrcult and
controversial. The scientifrcbasisfor ary evalgationmethodologl has not been
developed,so somesrbjectiveevaluationwillbe necessary.(Eventhe U'S' Fish and
Wildlife Sewice's modified HEP im'olved the zubjective best professional
judgement"of qualified expera.) As Onuf (1985)states'"the determinationof the
policJ'
relativevaluesof grosslydifferentkindsof habitatis a matter of interpreting
that the same
whichassumes
not the applicationof a methodof habitat assessment
resourcesare at issue."
The MRC hasproposedthat, dependingon the particrrlars,30to 60 ha would
derived
adequatelymitigatefor the lossof fish causedby SONGS'This sizewasnot
metbodologlexists'
by applyingan evaluationmethodologtbecauseno aPProPriate
Rather,the MRC judgedthe relativenaluesof tro proposedrnitigationtechniques'
ha of highartificial reefsandwetlandrestoration.The MRC hasestimatedthat 60
carsedby
relief artificial reef would adequatelymitigatethe mid-waterfish impacts
on the specific
SONGS (see Appendix D). Tbe MRC judged tbat, depending
equalrralueto
wetlandandrestorationplan,restoringa wetlandwouldprovidefrom
twicethevalue of an artificial reef (on a per-habasis)'
comparedto a!
The MRCs judgementof the value of a restoredwetland
in this chapter,includingthe
artificial reef is basedon a numberof factorsdisanssed
roles as nurseryareasfor
high productivity of coastalwetlands,their impoftant
marinefishandfeedinggroundsforbirds,tbeirprovisionofhabitatforrareand
value' As oneexample'we can
andtheir visualandeducational
species,
ssdangered
n1
I
Chaptcr 10
l
considerthe reliativeproductivityof coastalwetlandsand zubtidalreefsin Southern
Califorda As noted in Chapter8, uo estimateof fuh productionis availablefor
t
Southern California subtidal reefs Honreve&Allen (1982) has estimated fish
T
I
l
I
I
productionfor a coastalwetland (Upper NeuryortBay), and comparedproduction
ir this wetlandto a variety of other habitaa (Table let.
Estimatesfor two sites,
the Newport Bay littoral zone and MexicancoastallagooU night be considered
indicative of the levels of fisb production that could be achievedin a restored
wetland in Southern California
These two habitats ranked anong the most
productiveof all habitats,and were muchmore productivethan tbe purely marine
(Fnglis! Channeland GeorgesBank) habitats,whichmiglube representativeof fish
productiono! a temperatesubtidalreef..
There is one final concern about rcstoring a wetland as mitigation for
t
established. There is reasonablylittle doubt about the ability to modi$ and
superficially improve a wetland. Howwer, recent evaluations of wetland
I
I
I
restoratio$ have srggestedthat they freqgently do Dot achicvetheir goalf and
there is doubt about the ability of tbese rcstored wetlandsto assumethe full
I
functions of a natural wetlaod. Tbe potential for restoring rraluable,degraded
of
wetlandresogrcesis appealingbut there is enougbuncertaintyaboutthe success
t
wetland restorationsthat this techniqueshould be applied cautiorsln with the
I
realizationthat it is still elgerimental
I
SONGS' impacts. Wetland restorationhas frequentlybeen used as a mitigation
techniqge, &d in some respects,the technolog of wetland restoration is fuily
zn
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Rcstoratioa of coastalwetlands
Table 10-5
comparison of ennual fish prcduction for t!8rhc end csnnrine babltas.
.Moditred lnom Allcn (19E2),cftcrG FfercncGsto the cig[t origirsl sbdies can be
found. Vducs arc for all spcciesccept nber: notcd-
ESM{ATED
ANNUAL
PRODUCAION
I,CALEAI{D
(convwr/u2)
HABNAT
Delaware salt Barsh ctcck
Nenport Bay linoral zone
Mcxican coastallagoon
Cuban frqshwaterlagoon
No. Carolina celgrassbeds
Bermuda Coral Rccf
Tcxas lagoon (I4ura Madrc)
Fngli<h Channcl pclagic and dcmersalfishcs
GcorgesBank commercialEshes
I
l
I
t
T
I
t
I
I
I
n3
t02
9.4
8.6
62
4.6
43
38
1.0
0.4
This page intentionally left btank
I
I
I
T
I
l
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
T
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPTER 11
FISH HATCHERIES
11.1. Introduction
of lost fish
A fuh hatcherycould potentiatlyprovide iD-kind replacement
in the wild' The
resogrcesby providing juvenile fisb that could be released
adults and rear larvae requiresa thorougb
successfuluse of hatcheriesto SPawD
of a species,at leastthrougbthe juvenile
knowledgeof the life historycharacteristics
adulS and tbe
life stage. There must be a reliable source of reproductive
Equallyimportantfor
techniquesfor hatchingandrearinglarvaemlrstbe available'
of juveniles'
releaseof hatcherystockis an uuderstandingof the ecologr
successful
juvenileslive? What
The questionsthat needto be answeredinclude: Where do
survivalin the juvenile
sizesbouldthey be whenreleased?Wbat facton influence
survivorshipbe
habitat? Is the speciesrecntitment'Iimited? How canPost'release
maximized?
(salmon)hatcherieshave
The major conclrsionsof this chapterare: Existing
snrdies'The
in spiteof substantialfinarcial coss and ortensive
had limited success
stageof developmeut'with
use of hatcheriesto enhancemarine frsb is in an early
of releasinghatcberylittle knoum about reariag techniquesor the effectiveness
reared6sbiDtbewild.Becausetheseandotherproblemsarerrnlikelytobesolved
a feasibletechniquefor mitigating
in the near future, a batcherydoesnot seemlike
SONGS'effectson fuh.
n5
Chapter 11
112 Hatchery casestudies
lLz.l. Sslrnon
The ctrrent use of hatcheriesto enhancesalnon stocksprovidesa useful
model to evaluatethe feasibility of hatcberiesas a source of recruits to adult
populations. Pacifrcsalmonidsprovide one of tbe best oppornrnitiesfor success
becausethey have been studied extensively(see McNeil and Himsvorth 1980)'
Brood stock is readily availableand the requirementsof the early life stagesare
known galmss speciesare anadromous;adultsmigratefrom the oiean into coastal
ste2ms and rivers to spawDand juvenilesrenrn to tbe ocea&wberethey manre.
Hatcheriesare usuallylocatedin streamsand rivers. SpawningadulB are gatbered
as they move upstream to sPawnand, dependingon the species,juveniles are
releasedinto either strermsor lakcs @rannon1984),wheretbey remainuntil they
return to the oceanAll nations with major salmonfisheriesare orrently enhancingsalmon
stocks (Healey 1980). One of the most ambitious effors is tbe Salmonid
EnhancementPrograra (SEP), which was establishedin resPonseto the steady
decline in Pacific salmon stocls and has been operating in British Columbia
However,after 10yearsit cannotbe clearlydemonstratedtbat
the
the hatcheryprogran is a success.In fact' for one importantspecies,chinook'
as measgredby the sizeof the cornnercial coastprogran hasnot been successful,
canada,since$n.
productionand
wide catch. For example,despitea constantincreasein the batchery
in the Georgia
releaseof chinook smolS over tbe past 5 years'the chinookcatch
of similar
strait in 1987was the lowestin 25 years(Hume 1988). Tbe success
n6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
Fish hatcheries
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
states has also been
salmon enhancemelt Programs in Oregon and Washingou
limited (Hume 1988).
for Pacific salmon
The lack of successwitb many of the hatchery prograuts
in general' One
points out a rumber of risl6 associatedwitb the use of hatcheries
(Department of
potential problem is a reduetion in the gene pool of the stock
sPawnersthan wild
Fisheries and Oceans 1985). Because hatcheries need fewer
mighl decline' which
stocls to produce relatively large populations, genetic diversity
in the environment is
could be hazardousif the ability to adapt rapidly to changes
life stages is probably
affected. Since influence of natural selection in the early
could swaEp the gene
weaker for hatchery fish than for native fish, hatchery release
fish' Weaker fish rnay be
pool with the lesswell adapted genotlpes of the released
decreaseand natural
produced as a consequeDce'and ultimately fecgndity could
can esEblish wbether
mortality could increase. only long-terul obserrrations
(Department of Fisheries
depletion of the gene pool has these detrimental effects
3sd Qggens1985).
will replace rather tban
There is also the risk that hatchery stocls
when a stock witb a higb
zuprplementnatural stocks. Replacementwiu occur
If
time as a stockwitb a lower survivalrate'
surrrivalrate is fished at the
stock witb the higher rate of
fishi4g quotas are deterEined by the yield of tbe
andwill decline' The survival
survival,the weakerstockis, in effect,overbarvested
higberthan nanral stocls if hatchery
of hatcberystocksin the oPeDoceancouldbe
return to the sea' This couldeasily
smols are larger than naturalsmoltswhenthey
and the grounhof hatchery
occur if tbe growtb of nanrral smoltsis foodlimited
na$ral fisb"net benefitswill be lost'
smols is not. If batcheryfish merelyreplace
2n
Chapter 11
beenattributedto
of the hatcheryprogam in Wasbington'has
Jls limilsd success
The
the replagenentof nanrralProductionby hatcheryproducdon(Brannon19&a)'
extent of stock replace6eut in the SEP Progfiun is presently unloown' but
preliminary data zuggestthat t3Vo of.totalSEPproductionduring 1980to 1984was
I
I
I
replacementof naturalstocks(Departmentof Fisheriesand Oceans1985)'
Althougb tbe number of hatcherysmoltsreleasedin British Columbiahas
This
inseased steadily, increasesin adult stocks have not met exPectations'
indicatesthat facton that affest fish after they renrrn to tbe oceanare important
determinans of adult stock size and may reduce the effectivenessof a hatchery
in
program. One possibleexplanationfor the poor chinookcatchin GeorgiaStrait
During
1987is that oceanicconditionswer€ not favorablethat year (Hume 1988)'
will be
unfavorableyears,the resourcessPenton large scalehatcberyprodustion
if
wastedif the monality of smoltsis unuzuallyhigb. This is partiarlarty important
the carryingcapacityof the juvenilehabitatis reducedduringpoor years"
sgsanig
Juvenile habitats could become sanrratedeven in years when
very high' Smolts
conditionsare favorable. Productionat a large hatchcrywill be
releasedfrom a
are often releasedwithin a narrow time interrr"aland if they are
of tbe juvenile habitat
singlesite, hatcheryfish could exceedthe carryingcaPacity
near the releaseareacvenin goodyears'
l:1.22 Marine fish sPecies
Comparedtosalmon'theuseofhatctreriestoenhancemarinefrshstocksisa
to be evaluated' Two species
recegtdevelopmentwhosefeasibilityis just beginning
n8
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
Fisb hatcheries
of Fish and
have been targetedby tbe Califonria legislatgreand the Department
the white
Gane for researchwitb regardsto establishinga batcheryProgfiun:
t
I
califomias'
,4straAoscionnobilis,andthe California halibut, Poalichthys
seabass,
are Do data on their
These prograu$ are still in their ear$ stages,so there
I
undertakenjointly
The rearingProgramfor the California halibut hasbeen
in RedondoBeach'
by DFG and SoutbernCaliforaiaEdisonat Edison'slaboratory
juveniles
reared from egg to post-feeding
Halibut hav.e been successfuUy
for raisinglarvaehavebeendeveloped'
(approximatelyZcn long). The tec;hniques
in adult halibut (IC
although there is still some difEculty inducing spawning
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
l-
effectiveness.
Herbinson,pasonal commrniuion)'
TheprogramforrearingwhiteseabassisbeingconductedatHubbs
succesful at getting two
ResearcbCenter in San Diego. The progfam hasbeen
regardlessof the uormal
groupsof white sea bassto sPawDat aay desiredtime,
eggshavebeen worked
spawningperiod. Techniquesfor collectingand barching
witb the effests of differeut rearing
out, and tbe program is now e,xperimenting
Some animals have
densitiesand food tjpes (D. KcnL pas- contmaicaion\
estimatesof survivorshiP'
sgrvivedat leasttwo years;work is continuingon
fish is realize4 it is not clear
Even if the potential for rearingyoungmarine
for impactsto fish' For
tbat a hatcheryProgramwill satisfactorilycomPensate
nay be the nurseryhabitatfor youngexample,the bottleneckfor california halibut
numberof younghalibut will suwive
of-year(Allen et a|. tg85);if so,only a certain
n9
Chapter 11
for
no Eatter how many are release4 and a hatchery is not likely to be effective
enhancingthe stock
113 Discussion
Tbere are at leasttwo serioustechnicalproblemsthat lirnit the feasibilityof
few
using a fish hatcheryas mitigation for fish lossescaued by SONGS' Fint'
given
marine fish have been raised in a hatcherysinration It seemslikely that,
zufficient time and mo1ey, nearly alt speciescould be raised in a hatcbery'
provide'
However,there are manypotentialpidalls with little previousexperienceto
guidance,and there is no guaranteethat ary partiorlar speciescould be raised
witb
within reasonablelimits of time and money. Furttrermore,replacingfisb losses
and
hatcheryproductionwould requirea continuousoutlayof moneyfor operatioru
maintenance.Secou4little is lnoum aboutthe critical factorslimiting ftmy marine
historiesof
fish populations. It is clear th:t much more informationabout tbe life
and the
Earine fub, the Processesunderlyingthe dynamicsof the populations
before it canbe determinedwhethera
nature of potential bottlenecls,is necessary
restocking a
hatchery could er7etPowfiatly enhancea population" Blindly
populationfrom a hatcheryhasa higb likelihoodof failure.
a frshhatcheryis
The posibility of restoringmarinefish populationsthrougb
mitigation technique'
attractive, and hatcheriescnuld one day prorridea valuable
and it would be e:cUemely
However,they do not apPearto be feasibleat Present'
resourcesimpacted'
difficult to link the rraluea hatctrerycouldprovideto tbe
280
I
I
I
l
I
t
T
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
I
CHAPIER ljz
OTIIER MITIGATION TECHI{IQUES
precedingfive chapters
There are a n'mber of techniquesnot coveredin the
None of the three
that could be consideredfor mitigatingthe impactsof SONGS'
the sensethat tbey are
techniquesdiscussedin this c,haprcrare traditional' in
and/or bave been applied
consistentwith the FWS Mitigation Policy guidelines
thesetechniquesoffers
previouslyin coastalmitigationprojects. However,eachof
mitigating impacts to
partianlar advantages,especially when consideredfor
to envisionan appropriate
resources(suchas midwaterfub) for which it is diffic'lt
tecbniquefor in'kind replacemenl
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
12.1 Coastal Preservation
somecoastaldevelopnent
Ilnd acquisitionhasbeenusedas mitigationfor
land couldseweto mitigate
projects(Ashe 1982). Acguiringandpreserviqgcoastal
from the operation of SoNGS'
impacts to the marine environmentresulting
inconsistentwith the mitigation
However, resonrcepresernatiogaPPea$to be
cxistingresourcesrather than
policy set forth by F'WSbecauseit merelyPrcsenes
for project'relatedresourcelosses' This
producingDewresogroesto aogPeDsate
tbe consequenc€sof having land
inconsistencycan be seen by couidering
as more and more projects were
acquisitionas tbe sote mitigation technique:
preserved'but the total amount of
be
would
tand
more
and
more
completed,
resourcewould dwindle'
281
Cbaptcr 12
r -nd acquisitioncould be appropriatemitigatiotrif the acquiredland would
otherwisebe degraded. Tbe protestion of rare and valuable habitat (such as a
wetland)mighl be seenaspreferableto the in-kind replacementof sseminglylessvaluableresources(zuchas midp€ter fish). Judgementsabout the relativevalueof
different resonrcesare subjectiveand difficult to quantiff, and in the long term the
value of preseration dependson the nature of the (unloown) funre development
of the land. Viewed strictly from the standpoint of absolute resourcevalue,
preservationguaranteesthe protectionof someresourcesat the costof others. But
if the protectedresourcesare ar greatrisk, presernationmight in the loug run be the
mostvaluablealternative. For example,wetlandhabitatis at greatrisk in Southern
California in spite .of its perceivedvalue, and 7*dler (1982) argues that
developmentin and aroundwetlandswill continueunlesswetlandsare purchased
for publicmanagemeDl
IJnd acquisition and presewation c:rn be traditiond nitieation if the
acquisitionis tied to restoration In this case,tbe resourcevalue of a degraded
habitat is enhancedthrougb restoration, and there need not be a net loss of
resources.It seemslikely tbat most,if not all, of the land that couldbe acquiredin
SouthernCalifornia would bc somewhatdegraded;Se acquisitionand restoration
of land could &erefore be a valuablemitigation technique. (The restoration of
in detail in Chapter10.)
wetlandsand esnrariesis disggssed
122 Research
Knowledgeaboutpartiarlar resourcesor mitigationtechniquescouldbe very
valuable where actions or recommendatiorsby governmentagencieshave been
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ther mitigation tcchniques
.
hamperedby a l,ackof information- There bavebeena Dumberof casesin which
snrdieshave been recolnmendedas at least part of the mitigation requirement'
Recent exanples in Southern California (N. Gilbert' USFWS, personal
commwi@ion) include: (1) A sftdy of an adjacentliagoonin reqponseto building
oD a mes4 which was to provide information about tbe value of the lagoontbat
decisions.(2) A sftdy of the impact of
would be valuablefor funre Eranagement
isolation on the ecologicalfunctioningand integrity of vernalpools,recommended
as part of an overall mitigation packagethat inctudedpreservingexistingvernal
pools. (3) A sndy of the effestsof shadingon eelgrassin responseto development
- that would impacteelgrassbeds. In addition,a researcbinstinrtewasestablisbedas
part of the mitigation'settlemeutfor HudsonRiver Powerplans (Barnthouseet al'
1e88).
There are potentially seriousproblernswitb utilizing researchas the sole
meagsof mitigatinga partianlarimpact- By itself,researchdoesnot directlychange
resogrcevalues,and there would be somenet lossin resourcevalue,at leastin tbe
short tenL tn rhis sense,researcbdoes not follorv tbe F'\ilS Mitigation Policy'
flowever, the long-termbeuefrtsof properlydirectedresearchcouldbe nrbstantial'
of
and could ultimately result in increasedresourcevaluestbroughthe application
as
novel or refined techniques.This techniquewould be partiorlarly appropriate
tbe
nitigation for resourcesfor which no otber feasibletechniqueof replacing
resourceexists.
for the
Researchwas an explicit coEPoneutof the nitigation settlement
disputeover the
impactsof power plans oD the HudsonRiver. In this case,the
could not be
impaca of entrainmentof fish larvaeby power-plantcoolingsystems
-l
C|tzgtet 12
resolvedin spite of manyyea15of hfaringS. Becauselack of informatiou aboutthe
ecologyof the HudsonRiver wasviewedas a major impedimentto policy decisions
concerningthe use of the river, researchon Hudson River ecolory was seenas
appropriatemitigation As a result of the outd-court settle6ent,the HudsonRiver
Foundation was establishedto coordinateand fund researchon tbe ecologyof
organisnsliving in the HudsouRiver.
[Jtili-ing shrdies to complanent other mitigation techniqueswould be
asa
extremelyvaluable. In eachof the casescitedabove,a studywasrecommended
Eeansof acgqiringinformation abouthabita6 that would cenainlybe impactedby
futrue developmentprojects; the information would help the resourceageucies
of
make funue judgementsabout proposedimpactsto tbosehabitats' And i! two
the cases,the snrdywouldprovideinformationaboutthe babitatbeinginpacted'
It is worth noring that monitoringsnrdiesto determinewhethera partioilar
These
mitigation project was nrcces$rl would not be appropriate mitigation'
applied
monitoring studiesare very important,providinginfo:mationthat could be
Part
to funrre mitigation projeets. However,theyshouldbe onsidered a necessary
righr
of the mitigationrequiremengrathertban mitigationin their own
1ll3 Water qualitY imProvement
forrr of reducing
Mitigation for a terrestrial project sometimestakes the
producedby a separate'
imracts that are similar to the Projest impactsbut are
gnrelatedproject For example,the California Air ResourcesBoard has required
cagsea net benefrtin the air
that new sonrcesof air pollution, if permitte4 should
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Other nitigtim
tcchniques
air quality impactsin
quality of the regolL Tbe policy is basedon the theory tbat
anothersite within the
one area can be mitigated by air quality inprovementsat
'airsbed' (Ashe 1982). For example,StandardOil bad agreedto reduceemissions
for one of Standard's
at a SouthernCalifornia Edison Powerplant as nitigation
andprocesing
proposedrefineries(Ashe1982).Similarly,mitigationfor oil dri[iug
Channelmay include
developmentsimpacts on air quality in the SantaBarbara
Douros' penonal
improvementsto emissionsof other operations off-site @'
is that tbe project-related
commwication). In both cases,the underlyingidea
not beendegfaded'
impactsare mitigatedbecausethe overallair qualityhas
quality is tbe soutbern
A similar approach could be used for water
water quality as a result of
California Bight. As mitigation for adversl effeetsof
waterqualityat anotbersite
dischargedwaterfrom SONGS,SCEmightimprovethe
to water quallty could be
within the Bight Any number of differeut impacts
discbarges'SCE might
improve( including sewagetreatmentplants or indusgial
their other Southerncalifornia
alsobe able to redue the water quality impactsat
porverplans.
?a5
-l
This page intentionally left blank
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
SECTIONII
LI1ERATURECIIED
assessment:
Adamrs, p. and LT. Stochrell. 1gg3./4 mahd for walod fwaiorul
Federal
VolumeI Criticalwiw od aryhntion concepts.FTIWA-IP'82-23'
D'C'
HigbwayAdministration lVasbinggoD'
reef deploynetrton
Atevizon,W. andJ. Gorbam. 1987.Tbe effectsof an artificial
Conferenceon
nearbyresident reef dwelling fishes. Fogrth International
Artificial Habitatsfor Fisberies(Abstracrs):2'
1985' Use of
Alevizon,W.S.,J.C. Gorh2r'\ R.Ricbardsonand S'A' McCarthy'
(l,utjanidae) and gruuts
man-made reefs to concentmte snapper
(Haemulidae)inBaharnianwaters.Butl.Mar.Sci.3T:3.10.
struc$res to mitigate
Alewas, R3- and sJ. Edwards. 1985. use of reef-like
environnent. Bull. Mar. sci' 31:.396'
habitatlossin aDesnraxine
andproductivityof the littoral
Alleq LG. 1982. Seasonalabundane,composition,
fishassemblageinupperNewportBay,californiaFish'Bull'80(a):769'
790.
divenity andseasonalityof fishesiu
Allen, LG. and M.H. Horn tg75. Abundance,
Coloradol^goo4Alarrritos,Bay,CaliforuiaEsnrarineCoastalMar.Sci.3:
371-380.
287
Sectiootr Literaturc Cired
on the
Alleq LG., C.P. Onuf and lv{.S.Love. 1984. Resuls of a pilot sildy
distribution and abundanceof young-of-yearCalifornia halibut in the
vicinities sf Alatnilss Bay and San Onofre-Oceanside,May-June' 19&4'
Reportto the MarineReviewQemmillsg.
on tbe
Alleq LG., CP. Onuf and M.S. Love. 1984. Resultsof a pilot snrdy
in tbe
distribution and abundanceof yogng'of'year California halibut
1984'
vicinities of Alemitos Bay and San onofre-oceanside,May-June,
Report to the Marine ReviewCornmittee'
Report
Ambrose,R.F. 1986a Artificial Reefs. Volume t A reviewand analysis'
to the Marine ReviewComnittee. 186pp'
1986b. An evaluatios of alternative techniquesfor mitigating
irnpacts of the San Onofre Nuclear GeneratingStation Report to the
Ambrose, RF.
MarineReviewComrnittee.168PPnanrralreefsin
Ambrose,RF. 198?a Comparisonof communitieson artifrcialand
Final Report
Southern California with emphasison fish assemblages'
nrbmittedto the Marine Reviewcommittee. December1987'
Ambrose,R.F.lgsTb.Compilationofinformationrelatedtomitigation:Fadors
giant kelp' life history
influencingthe recruitment,growthan{ persistenceof
for seagrass
slrmmaries for nearshore fish species, and techniques
resrcratiolt. Report to the Marine ReviewCommittee'
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
l
Scaioa tr Literarurc Cited
evaluatioDof Pendleton
Ambrosq R.F. and T.W. Anderson- 1989. A review and
Committeeto the
Artificial Reef. Final Report from the Marine Review
pp'
CaliforniaCoastalCommissionAprit 1989' 162
of an artificial reef
Ambrose,RF. and T.\il. Anderson in prcP, The influence
on
the surroundingidaunal community'
giant ketp recnritmentby an
Ambrose,R.F. and B.v. Nelson 1982. Inhibition of
introducedbroumalgaBotanicaMarina?52265'267
In prus' changesin kelp
Ambrose,R.F.,J3- coyer,J.E.Engle,andB.V. Nelson.
In: Recentdvotces in
and urchin densitiesat AnacaPaIsland,california'
of the T'lird califomia Islands
califomia Iststds ieseoTlx Proceedings
History' santaBarbara'ca
synposiuttt-santaBarbaraMuseumof Natural
1988.
Lg87'Comparisonof communities
Ambrose,RF.,lvLL Pattonand sL Swarbrick
implicationsfor artificial reefs'
on nat'ral reefsin SoutbernCaliforniq with
Report to tbe Marine ReviewCommittee'
ou
comparisonof fisb assemblages
Ambrose,R.F. and sL Swarbrick- 1989.
of Southerncalifornia BulI' Mar'
artificial and nanral reeB off the coast
Sci.44:7L8:733'
Anderson'E.KandWJ.Nortb.Lg6T.ZooEporereleaseratesingiantkelp
Macrocysis.Bull.So.Calif.AcademySciences66(a):223.232.
?a9
Scctioa tr Utcraturc Citcd
Roberts. 1989' The relationshipbetweeu
Anderson,T.W., E.E. DeMartini, D.J-AtemPerateartificial
habitat stnrcfige,bodysizc,and distributionof fishesat a
reef. Bull. Mar. Sci 44: 681-697'
Ashe, D.M.
LISL Fish and wildlife nitigation:
descriptionand analysisof
l0: 1'52'
estuarineapplications.coastal TnteManagementJournal
for fish population
Backiel,T. and E.D. I3 cren 1g7g. somedensityrelationships
s'D' Gerking ed'
parameters. In: Ecologr of freshwatu fuh prodt'tction'
BlaclsrellScientifrcPubl.Co.,odord. pp.279.302.
Barathousg LW., J. Boreman,T.L Englert, wL
Kirk and E'G' Horn' 1988'
Technical rationale and cost
Hudson River settlement agreemenr
4: 267'273'
consideratiods.AmericanFisheriessocietyMonograph
on recnritmentand early
Behrents,ILC 1987.The influenceof shelteravailability
dalli Gilbert (Pisccs:Gobiidae)' J' E'xP'
juvenile s[rrivonhip of.Lythryptttts
Mar. Biol. EcoL107:45'59'
BernsteiqBs.andN.Jrurg.tgTg.SelegtivePresslrresandcoevolutioninakelp
qrnoPycommrrnityinsouthernCaliforniaEcoLMonogr.4g:335-355.
Bodkin, JL
kelp foress off
in Maoocystisznd Nueocystis
1986. Fish assemblages
ccntralCaliforuiaFish.Bull,U.S.34:799-8v7.
290
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
t
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
ScctionB Uteraturc Citcd
in
fish assemblages
associated
Bodkirl JJ- 1988.Effectsof kelp forestremovalon
centralCalifornia J. Exp' Mar' BioL Ecof' t17:227238'
Bohnsack,J.A
coml heods: or
tgIg. The eologt of te6 fuh'4 on isolatd
qpqimntalapprorchwithmtpltosisonislotdbiogeographictheory.Ph.D.
Thesis,Univenity of Miami' Florida 279W'
order versgschaoscontroversy
BohnsachJ*d 1983a- SpeciesnElrover and tbe
Reefs.|: 273.?-?3.
concerningreef fish commrrnityStnrcttrre.Co:al
communitiesin the Florida Keys
BohnsaclqJ*4,. 1983b. Resiliencyof reef fisb
E8viI.Biol. Fish.9(1): a1-53.
followingaJanuary1977hpothermalfishkill.
reef research: a reviewwith
BobnsachJ"d and DL sutherland. lgss. Artificial
recommendationsforfutuepriorities.Bull.Mar.ScL3T:11-39.
by reef fisheson Ausualian
Bohnsack,J-d andF.H. Talbot 1980.Species'packitrg
andCaribbeanreefs:anexperimentalapproach.Bull.Mar.Sci.30(3):?1s
723.
and
habitatutilization,feedingstrategies
abrrndanceso
Seasonal
1981.
J.M.
Bolan4
interspecificcompetitionwithinawinrcringshorebirdcommunityandtbeir
possiblerelationshipswitbtbelatinrdinaldistributionofsborebirdspecies.
M.S.Thesis,sanDiegoStateUniversity'SanDiego'78pp'
297
-l
Seaion tr Utcratrnc Citcd
for water resources
Bourne,R.G. and C.H. Wolfgang. 1983. Coastalwetlands
'83,VohuneI. Procedingsof the Third
manageBenl In: Coastalhtu
O'T' Magoon and H'
Symposiwt on Coastaland Oceqt Mougana&
Comrerse,eds. PP.1457'147L
in washing3onstate.l!i: Reportof the
Brannon,E.L 1984. $elmon enhancement
Eureka
2rrd ca$omia salmon and steelhead Restorationconfererce'
eds' CaliforniaSea
California,January?3'29,1984' Hashage+K a aL'
Grast CollegeProgan
densitieson daily
Bray, RN. 19E1. Influence of water curents and zooplanktou
a planktivorous
foragrng movementsof blacksmitb' Chmmispnnipirnis'
reef fish. Fish.BulI.78(a): 829-841'
of nest sites:
1987. Interspecificcompetitionand the abundance
goby' Ecologt 68: 1844Fastorsaffecting sqnral selectionin a temperate
Breitbgrg D.L
1855.
Broch R-8. 1985. An *""
waters. la: AffiiaI
Hawaiian
reef enhancement
Progra6 for nearshore
M' D'Itri'
reefs:msirrc ud freshwatr qplicaions F
ed. kwis hrbl.,Inc, Chelsea'Michigan"pp' 317-336'
ecological
Buckley,R.M.andGJ..Hueckel.lgS5.Biologicalprocessesand
gluU.tvtar.
soun4 washingrcn
hrget
in
reei
artificial
an
on
development
Sci.37(1):5tr69.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
t
292
I
Scaion II Literaturc Cited
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
t
a8d J'
Burchmore, JJ., D.A. Poltar4 J.D. Bell, MJ. MiddletoD, B.C Pease,
on an artificial and natural rocky reef
Matthews. 1985. Benthicsuccessiog
Mar' Sci'
fisb commgnitiesinBotany Bay,New SouthWales,Arsgalia Butl'
37(1): 7c85.
California Coastal TnteConsernationCommission(CCZCC)'
Lg75' C'alifomia
CACoastalPlot Sacramento,
Artificial
California Departmentof Fish and Game (CDF&G). 1983' Pendleton
Edison'SCEReef Annual ProgressReport. Report to SouthernCalifornia
83-RD-25.
ptdudion in
Chapman,D.W. 1978.Produstion ln Mahds for assessnatof f14lh
No. 3. Blachrell scientiEc
fresh waterc- T. Bagena! ed. IBP Handbook
Publ.,Odord"
of a pomacentrid
Clarke,TJ. 1970.Territorial beh6viorandpopulationsdynamics
fisb'thegaribaldi'Ilypsypops|ubi&nd\.Ecol.Monogr.4a:L89.2L2.
Beach wetland coatq R.' J. Buchhotz and B. Massey. 1987. Huntin$on
Beachwetlands
restoratioDplan Project#3g4. Report to the Huntingon
61PP.
conservancY.
ossociatdwfih Macrorystisplnifera
coyer, J.lA- tg|7g.The iwenebrde assqttblage
by tcztpfon-st fshes Ph'D' Dissertation'
ad itsurtftzstionas a fod
Univ. SoutbernCalifornia'Los Angeles'364pp'
293
I
Sectiontr Uteraturc Cited
col$tnrstiotrimPadson
Davis,G.E. 1985. Artificial structuresto Eitigate marina
Bull' Mar' Sci'3?(1): 151-156'
splnylobster,Parutlitttsorrgtt&
Man.madestrugtureson
Davis, N., GR. Van Blaricom and P.IC Dayton- t982.
Mar' Biol' 70:
marine sediments:Effectson adjacentbenthiccommunities'
295-303.
El Nino' and patch
Dayton,P.IL and MJ. Tegner. 1984. Catastrophicstorms,
224:283'285'
stabilityin a soutberucalifornia kelp comrrunity' Science
R. RosenthatandD'V' Tresca'
Dayton,P.trL,V. C\rrrie,T. Gerrodette,B.D. Keller,
kelp cornmunities'
1984. Patch dpamics and stability of somecalifornia
.
Ecol.Monogr.542?53'289'
of the ucSB Fish Project'
DeMartini, E.E. 1985. April 1985Year'End Report
to the Marine Review
Volume L Summaryof Findingp, Report submitted
Committee.
UCSB Fish SnrdyProject'
DeMartini, E.E. 198?. Final Report of the
submittedto the Marine ReviewCommittee'
Report
of
Arrderson. 1989. Conuastingpattern
T.W.
and
Robers
D3.
E.E,.,
DeMartini'
rock reef and a cobble'bottom
fish density and abundanceat an artificial
kelp forest Bull' Mar' Sci'44: 881-892"
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sccion tr Litcrarurc Cited
of tbe
Department of Fisheries and Oceans(DFO). 1985. Evaluation snrdy
salmonidenhaacegentprog"ID, ExecgtiveSgmmaryand Recommendation'
June 1985. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Ca"ad4 Progran
EvaluationBranch. 9 PP.
of ar atfuiat rcef in
Dewees,C.M. 1970. Popiaion dynyrics qd fshing strccess
pp'
Hwboldt Bay,califomia. M.s. Thesis,Humboldtstate college. 69
reef in
Dewees,C.M. and D.W. Go15ha[. tg74. An elgerimental artificial
HumboldtBay,california calif. Fish Gasre60(3):709'Ln.
Doherty, PJ.
1983. TroPical rcrritorial damselfishes: Is density limited by
or recnritment?EcologtO4z176190aggression
coralreef fisb
Doherty,PJ. and D. McB. Williasis. In press.The rcplenishmentof
populations.Oceanogr.Mar. Biol' Ann' Rev'
of reef fuhes in a
Ebeling A.W. and RN. Bray. tg76. Day verss night activities
'
kelp forestoff santaBarbare california Fish.Bull. 74: 70T717
storm disnrbancesand
Ebeting Aw., D.R. Laur and RJ. Rowley. 1985. Severe
kelp foresl Mar'
rerrersalof comrurnitystnrcure in a southeraCalifomia
Biol.84:?f7'294.
wetlands: Pickleweedor
Eliot, w. and R. Holderman 1?88. Tbe Huntington
parkinglot? CaliforniaWaterfrontAge a(1): 19-26'
295
Scaioatr UtcratureCitcd
I irnnol'
Fager, E-F. 1g7L. Patterns in developEentof a marine community'
Ocean 16:241-?53.
of an artificial tire reef
Fast,D-E. andF*{. Pagan Lg74.Comparativeobservations
IntL Conf'
and naturat patch reeft off southwesternPuertoRico' ln" Proc
TAI{U'
Attificial Reefs.LColunga and R3. Stone,eds TexasA&M Univ"
SG-7+103.PP.49-50.
on fisbesassociated
Feder,H.M., CL nrrner and C. Limbaugb. tg74. Observatins
Bull' 160:
with kelp bedsin southeraCalifornia Ca[f:Dept. FishGameFish
l-14/..
t
Ferq C.D. and M. Morgarutein. 1974. New artifrcial reeB of Oahu'
ln: Ptoc"IntL
Conf.ArtficialRefis.LColungaandR.B.Stone,C&.TexasA&MUniv.'
TAlvfU-SG:7+r03. pP.51-55.
foress in california:
Foster,lvls. and DR. Schiel. 1gg5.The ecolog of grantkelp
s5(72)' 152pp'
A communityprofrle. u.s. Fish wildl. Serv.BioL Rcp'
1981. colonization by nearshorefish on small
59(9):
Barkley soun4 British columbia can' J' TaoL
Gascon,D. and R-4. Miller.
artificial reeft in
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
1635-t&6.
1989. HuntingtonBeacbWetlands
Gorman' G.c, LW. Murray and G.V. I-eipzig.
Monitoring Report No' 1'
consenranryTalbert March RestorationProject
JulY1989.28 PP'
296
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Sectiontr Utcratue Cited
Grant,JJ., ICC. Wilson,A Grover,andHA TogStad.t98?- Early developmentof
Pendletonartificialreef. Mar. Fish.Rev.44(67): 5360.
emergi4grole in shapingwetland
Greuell, P. 1988. The CoastalConseruanqt's
mitigation apProaches: Standads and criteria In: Procedinp of the
NaionalWaland Synposiwt: MitigAionof impaasotd losses.New Orleans,
I-ouisian4October&10, 1986.pp.99'102.
Grove, R.S. 1982. Artificial reefs as a resour@managementoPdon for siting
.coastalPo\ilerstatioDsin SoutbernCalifornia Mar. Fish.Rev' 44(G7): 24'
n"
Grove,R.S.,J.E. Yuge andC Sonu. 1983 Artificial reef technologn a strategtfor
'83.
activeimpact mitigation lt Proc Oceans Effeaive useof the sea: st
update SanFrancisco,Aug.29-Sept.1, 1983.TechnicalPapas' 2: 95L'956'
Harrold, c. and D. Reed. 1985. Food availability,seaurchin grazing,and ketp
forestcommunitystnlchre. Ecologr66: 116S1169'
Harvey, H.T. and lvfN. Josselyn" 1986. Wetlands restoratioDand mitigation
policies: commenr EnvironmentalManagement10(5): 567-569'
Britisb
Healey, M.C. 1980. Tbe ecologt of juvenile salmonin Georgia Strail
rWJ' and
of the NorthPrcific' McNeil '
Columbia Inz Salmonidecosystems
D.C.Himsporth,eds.oregonStateUniversityPress.pp.20329.
297
Sccioa tr Uteraturc Gtcd
an off'shore
Helvey,M. and P. Dorn 1981. The fuh population associatedwith
water intake stnrcture.'Bull. So.calif. Acad.sci. 80: 23'31.
on the fish
Helvery, M3- and R.W. Smith. 1985. Influenceof habitat stnrctlre
associatedwith two cooling-waterintake stnrcturesin southern
assemblages
Catifornia ButLMar. Sci.37: 189-199.
strucilre
Holbrook, SJ., RJ. SchmittandR-F. Ambrose. In press.Biogenichabitat
AustralianJournalof
and characteristicsof temperatereef frsh assemblages'
Ecologr.
fish
1980. Foraging oo an artificial reef by three Puget Sound
species.Wash.Depr Fish-Tech.Rep'53' 110pp'
Hueckel, GJ.
Cited in Walton
Hueckel, GJ. 1981. Penonal communicationto J.lvI"Walton"
7982.
Rocky habitat mitigation
Hueckel, GJ., RM. Buckley and BJ- Benson 1997.
onAttificial Habitatsfor
usingartifrciatreefs. FoutthInmational Conf*eltre
Fistwries(Abstracts):62.
oDan artifrcial reef in
Hueckel,GJ. and RJ- Stayton 1982 Fish foraging
Soun{ Washingfon Mar' Fish' Rer'' aa(67): 3844'
hrget
hatcheriesfails to fill nets. The
Hume, M. 1988. rying at sea: spendingon
Vancowqsran,January30,1988'pp' A1' A10'
298
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
t
I
T
t
I
I
I
T:
Scctiontr Litcraturc Citcd
CatPenter. 1985. Density estinates of five
a natural reef
rvarur-teBperatereef fishesassociatedwith an artificial reef'
applicuiotu'
and a kelp forest. In: Artfica rcefs: ,rrsirg ud freshwau
F.M. D'Itri, ed. Lewish$L,Inc' ChelseqMichigan pp' 3$a00"
Jessee,WN.' J.W. Carter and AI
reef fish assembl4ges
Jones,R.S.and MJ. Thompson 1978.Comparisouof Florida
.
usinga rapid visualtechnique.Bull' Mar' Sci' 28(1): L59-L7Z'
restorationprojects
JosselyqM. and J. Buchholz tg82. Summaryof pastwetland
in californio
in california ln: wawta restorationand enhstcement
Lalofla' C'A pp' 1'10'
CaliforniaSeaGrant ReportT'CSGCP-007,
pelagc fisheswitb
Ktina E.F. and D*A- wickham. tg7L. Atuaction of coastal
artificial stmctures.Trans'Amer' Fish' Soc'100: 8699'
annotatedchecklistof tbe
Klingbeil, R-4, R.D. Sandell,ud aw. wells. tg75. An
tesourcaof
and teleostsof AnaheimBay. IB: TrE msine
elasmobrancbs
Anat,eimBay.C.aliLDePrFisbGame,FishB//itfiin165.pp.Tg.gg.
wetland/shallowwater
Krarner, SJL and JR. Hunter. 1987. SouthernCalifornia
yezr t987' National Marine
habitat imrestigation Anrual report for fiscal
Fisheries@nter, Ia Jouq cn. ? pp.
FisheriesSewice,Southrn,est
KrenqsJ.198?.DiabloCanyonAnifrciatReefProjegclgs6Snrdies.PacificGas
24 W'
andElectric Company,unpublishedreport
299
Sccioa tr Utcraturc Citcd
Project 1985
Krenn, S. J. and wilsou, T.c. 1986. Diablo c:nyon Artifrciat Reef
14
studies.PacificGasandElectric Company,unpublishedreport' PP'
wetland mitigation
KuDz,IC, l"L Rylko and E. Somers. 1988. An assesmentof
2a'
practicesin Washingtonstate.NationalWetlandsNewsletter10(3):
distribution of
I:rson, RJ. and E.E. DeMartint 1984. Abundanceand vertical
Fish' Bull'
fishesin a cobble-bottomkelp forest off san onofre, california
s2(1): 37-53.
on
comparisons
I-aufle,J.C. and G3. Pauley. 1985.Fish colonizationandmaterials
ahrgetSoundartificialreef.Bull.Mar.Sci.3T(1):2n.243.
to commercial
Irnanton, R.CJ. and I.C Potter. 1987. Contributios of esnrades
of estuarine
fisheries in temperate westcrn AusUalia and tbe concePt
Esnraries10(1): 28'35'
dependenceand S'M' Pereira
Lindquist, D.G. lyI"v. ogburn, w3. stanley, HL Troutman
jetties in North
1985. Fish utilization Patternson temperaterubble'mound
Carolina Bull. Mar' Scl 37: 24+25L'
1983a PendletonArtificial Reef;
Itckheed ocean ScienceLaboratories(IOSL).
l981-November1983'
benthic and fish communitydevelopmentSeptlmber
FimlReporlVolumel.ReportsubmittedtotheMarineReview
Committee.
300
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
i
I
SectioaII Litcraturc Cited
LockheedOccanScienceLaboratories(I-OSL). 1983b.PeudletouArtificial Reef'
herygoptnm transplantatioDsftdy, Final Repor! Volume II. Report
srbmitted to the MarineReviewComminee.
on Pendleton
LockbeedOceanScienceLaboratories(LOSL). 1983c. Succession
Artificial Reef: an artificial reef designedto stlPporta kelp forest' Final
Repor! Volumeltr. Reportsgbmittedto the Maline ReviewCommittee'
Matthews,ICR- 1985. Speciessimilarity and movementof fisheson nanrral and
artificialreeft in MontereyBay,Californru hll Ms' Sci'37(1):252'nA'
McColhrn, J"lvl 1988. A field biologist perspectiveoD the habitat evaluation
tool In: Proeedingsof tlu Ndronal
procedures: An impact assessment
WaludS4tnposfu'*n:MifigaionofimpaasardbssesNeworleans,
Iruisiam, October &10, 1986. Associationof State \iletland Managen
TechnicalRePort3: 311-38.
of tlu North
McNeil , WJ. and D.C llinsn'ortb, eds 1980. Salmonideoosyfiems
Pagfu.OregonStateUnivenityPress331pp'
Wetland'Los Angeles'
Meq E-D. 1988.Habitat managegentplan for the Ballona
Mirtgaion of
califoraia lt Prcceningsof t E Naionawdlnd synposfutn
&10, 1986'
Imprcts ord Losses. New orleans, Iruisiang october
Associationof statewetland ManagenTechnicalReport3::37$376'
301
Scctioa tr Utcrature Citcd
tg73. Sumnary of blue rocldsh and lingcod life
histories;a reef ecologrsildy; andgiant kelpMaooqstis pyrifaa elgerimens
in MontereyBay,C.alifornia Dept. Fish Gane Fish Bull. 158: 1-137'
Miller, J.D. and JJ. Geibel
reef patches:
Molles, M.C, Jr. 1978. Fish speciesdiversityon model and nanual
experimentalinsularbiogeography.Ecol. Monogr.a8(3): 289'305'
for fisheriesand
Mottet, M.G. 1981. Enhancementof tbe marine eovironment
pp'
aquaorltureinJapan. Wash.Dept.Fisb"Tech'ReP' 69' 96
managenent
National Audubon Society(NAS). 1986. Ballona wetland habitat
adoptio+
plan Repoft submittedto the city of los Angetesfor reviewand
November1986.99PP.
yield from a near'shore
Neushul,M. and B.W.W.Harger. 1985. Studiesof biomass
macroalgaltestfarn J. SotarEnergyEngineering707:93'96
massctltures' to restore
Nortb WJ. 1981. lJis of,Matocystisembryos,gFoumin
depletedkelpbeds.ProcedittgsoftttcEigllthlntqnationalseowed
4P84&
SYmPosium:
ogawa, y.
lnz laputeseAnificial
Lgg2*common [ses of a varieryof reei ty?es.
fudTec}talogt,s.F.Vilqed.Aquabio,|nc.TecLRep.6M:32v362.
U.s. Fisb and Wildlife Service.
onuf, CJ). 1985. I-etter of Nor,ember6, 1985.
(Ittter includedasAppendix3 in Ambrose1986')
302
I
T
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
t
Scaioa II Utcraturc Citcd
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
Onuf, C.P. 1987. Tbe Ecologt of Mugu Lagoon,California: An Esnurine Profile'
u.s. Fishandwildtife serviceBiologicalReport35(7.15).],2'pp.
Onuf, CP. and lvLL Quammcn 1983.Fishesin a Californiacoastallagoon: effeas
1of major stonnson distributionand abgndane. Mar. Ecol. Prog'Ser' O:
74.
onut cP, ML Quammen,G.P.Shaffer,cJI. Peterson,J.W. 6apman' J. Cermak
and RW. Holmes. 1978. An analysisof tbe valuesof centraland southern
of
California coastalwetlands. In: Wetlutd fitttctionsand valuq: ThestAe
our wdemandbry. P. Greeson,J.R. Clark and J.E. Clarlq eds. American
water ResourcesAssoc.,Minneapolis,Minnesota pp. 18&199.
Murrells
Parker,R.O., Jr., R.B. Stoneand C.C.Bucbanan tgTg' Artificial reefsoff
InleL SouthCarolina Mar. Fisb.Rev' 41(9): L2'24'
reeB tell us
Patton,MJ-, R.S. Grove,and RF. Haruran. 1985. What do nangal
Sci' 37(1):
about designingartificial reefsin SoutbernCalifornia Bull. Mar'
n9-298.
of atta&ed organisms'
Pearce,J3. andJR. Ches. 1968.Distribution and ecologr
Bull' sport Fish'
Progressin Sport Fishery Researcb,lVashingon, D.C
Wildl., May 1969.Resourcehrbl 77: ZVZI'
for the benthosof two
Peterson,C.H. tg75. Stabilityof speciesand of community
lagoons.Ecologr56: 95&965'
303
Scction II Utcraturc Citcd
Quammen,M.L
1986. Measuringthe strccessof wetlandsmitigation' National
WetlandsNewsletter8(5): &8.
In:
Quernrnen,MJ- 1988. Measqring the zuccessof wetlands mitigation"
Procedbrysof the Ndionat Wettotd Synposiunt Mitiguion of impaAsand
lossesNew Orlearrs,LouisianaOctober8-10,1986.pp.242'2a5.
Race,M.S. 1985. Critique of presentwetlandsmitigationpoliciesin the United
Statesbasedon an analysisof pastrestoratiooProjestsin SanFranciscoBay'
9(1): 71'82.
EnvironnentalManagement
Race, M.S.
1986. Wetlands restoration and mitigation policies: Reply'
marsh
Race,M.S. and D.R. Christie. 1gg2. coastalzonedevelopment mitigation,
creatio& and decision-making.EnvironmentalManagement6(): 317-328'
Reefs:
Ranasingbe,J-A. 1981. Biological aspectsof artificial reeft' ln: 'anificial
conf. Proc. D.Y. Askaed.FloridaseaGrantcollegeRep.41: 74'16'
reefs
in the Virgin Islands.Carib'J' Sct 3: 3147'
shading on algal
Reed, D.C and M.s. Foster. 1984. The effects of canopy
recnritmentandgrowthin a giantkelp forest.EcoloSr65:937'%8'
304
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
10(5):57L'572.
EnvironnentalManagement
andnan[al
Randall,J.E. 1963.An analysisof the fish populationsof ardficial
I
T
I
I
t
I
T
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
I
t
Scctiontr Llcrature Citcd
Coastal Zone'83:
Rice, D.W. 1983. Los AngelesHarbor kelp transplantProject
1082-1089
Intmional
Rice,D.W. 1987.Ios AngelesHarbor kelp transplantproject Fotttth
conferanceonAtificial Hbitas for Fisrt(ries(Abst?('s): 104.
artificial reef
Russell,B.C. tg75. The develoPmentand dyoamicsof a small
community.Helgol Wiss.Meeresuntes'Z?"29&3L2'
of artificial
Russell"8.c., F.H. Talbot and S.Domm. tg74. Patternsof colonization
A'M'
reefs by coral reef Fishes. In Proc 2nd Int Synp. coral Reels
L: 207'2L5'
caneron et al.,eds.Brisbane:GrcatBMie? Reefcommittee'
(SFBCDC)' 1988'
san FranciscoBay Consenrationand Developmeslcomrqission
FranciscoBay'
Mitigation: an anatysisof tidelandrestorationprojectsin San
StaffRePorr March1988.74PP'
mitigation and habitat
Sheehy,D. 1981a Artificial reeft as a meansof marine
Marine Review
improvement in southern california Report to the
Committee.Aquabio,Inc, Columbia'Md' 68pp'
and Taiwan" lllz Anifrcial
Sheehy,DJ. 1981b. Artifrcial reef prograrnsiu Japan
CollegeRep.41.: 185Reefs:Conf.Proa D,Y. Ask4 ed. Florida SeaGrant
198.
305
I
I
Scctioa II Lilcraturc Citcd
Shiniar, T. 1981. On the distribution of fish scboolsat tbe artificial fisb reef
groundotr Nagi,IGaagawaPrefectue. Bull. I(anagawaPrefectureFish Exp.
Sta 3: 1-7.
Smitb G.8., D-d Hensley and H.H. Mathews. t979. Comparativeef6cacyof
ardficial and nanral Gulf of MexicoReefsas fish attractaBts.Florida Dept.
Nat. Resources Marine Research l.ab.
Florida Marine Researcb
hrblications 35. 7pp.
Solonsky,A.C. 1985. Fish colonizationand the effect sf fuhing activitieson two
aftificial reefsin MontereyBay,California Bull. Mar. Sct 37(1): 336'347.
Sorenson,J. and S. Gates. 1983. New directionsin restorationof coastalwetlands.
In: Coastalhrc '83, VolumeI. Procedkgs of the Third Synposiumon
Coilttal otd Oceot Mouganant O.T. Magoonand H. Converse,eds. pP.
1427-r43.
Spanier,EM.T. and S. Pisanti. 1983.Enhancementof fisb rccnritmentby anificial
cnrichment of man-madercefs in the SoutheasternMedircrranean-Third
IntL Artificial Reef Conf.Abstrasts.P.tL
(SCC). tg8f'- Regioualwetlandsrestorationstudy: Los
StateCoastalConsenrancy
Angelesand Orangecouuties.Final Draft Reporr 38 pp'
I
I
I
Scctiolrtr Uteraturc Circd
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
New
glsirnts,F. andL ogren 1982.Food of fish collectedon artificial reefsin tbe
Rev' 44(G7): 49York Bight and off Charleston'SoutbCarolina Mar' Fish'
52.
and G-E McGowen'
stephens,J.s., Jr., G.A Jordan,Pd Morris, lvtM. Singer
or population
1986. Can we relate larval fuh abundasceto recruitnent
rcmPeraterocJcyreef'
stabitity? A preliminaryanalysesof recruitmentto a
CaICOFIReP.Zl:65'83.
affectingfuh
J.S.,Jr.,P*{ Monis, K7ljbrqand M. Love. 1984.Factors
Stephens,
of Palosverdes Point'
diversityon a temPeratereef: The fish assemblage
Envir.Biol. Fish' tt: 259-275'
1974-1981.
be designedto
J,S.,Jr. andJ3. Patmer. tg7g. CancoastalPorverstations
Stepbens,
mitQationsymposium:A
offset impactsby habitat enridment? In: Thc
wtulife habitas pP' 4G
naionat worlcstnpon milQainglossasof fishod
450.
Davis' tg79' A comparison'of
Stone,R3., HL Pratt RO. Parker,Jr. and G.E.
in the Florida Kels' Mar'
fisb populationsof and artificial and nanral reef
Fisb.Rev.a1(9): 1-11'
tgt|'An alternativeperspectiveon
Swanson,G.C.,JJ-, SelmograndR.B. Ditton
in the coastalzone' coastal
coEmoDProPertyresour@allocationdecisioDs
TnneManag'J' a(1-2): 2545'
307
ScctioaU Litcraturc Cited
1978' Habitat
Tbayer,G.W.,H.H. StuarEWJ. Keunortbry,J'F Ustach'A'E' Hall'
for aquaticorganisms'In:
naluesOfsalt marshes!mangroves'and seagrasses
Greeson'
Walod funions otd vahrcs: The stoteof our wtd6tattding P'
Assoc"
JR. Clark and J.E. Clarh eds. American water Resourccs
Minneapolis,Minnesota-P9.235'241'
mitigatiou: Final
Thum, A.' J. Gonor, .d Carter and lvl" Foster. 1983. Reviewof
ReportReportzubmittedtotheMarineReviewCommittee.
1986- Pendleton
Togstad,H*{-, K.C. Wilson, R.D. Lewis and D*d Aseltine.
to Southern
Artificiat Reef: An overview of progress' 1985. RePort
CaliforniaEdisonCo. 29 PP.
Evaluation of the
Tubb, R"' N. Douning R McClure and c. El-Zaht 1981.
of artificial
potential for expandingthe sportfishingindrstry by constn'rction
111-113'
reeB. Annu Res.Rep.KuwaitInsr ScLRes. 1981(1982):
reef ecologr' calif'
Tgrner, cJ{.' E-E Ebert and RJl- Given 1969. Man'made
DePr Fish Game,Fish BulL fi6' ZlPp
concept plan for waterfowl
u.s. Fish and wildlife Sewice (usFWS). tng.
priority category6' u's'
babitat presewation: california coast,
t?9'p9'
Departmentof the Interior, F'WS'Portlan4 Oregon'
1981' u's' Fish and lvildlife Service
u.s. Fish and wildlife Service(usFWS).
($): 76,,*-,,7663'
MitigationPolicy' FederalRegistera6
308
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
t
t
I
I
I
I
Scctioatr Litcranrc Citcd
I
I
Victor, B.C. 1986.I-arval settlementandjuvenilelrortality in a recnritment-Iinited
coralreef fish populatioa Ecol. Monogr'56: 145'160'
t
wals\ wJ'
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
the
1985' Reef fish communityd)'Danicson small artificial reefs:
Mar' Sci'
influenceof isolation,habitat structure,and biogeograPby.Bull.
362357-376.
univ'
walton, J.M. tglg. Puga Sowd Artficial Reefstfiy. Ph.D. Dissertation'
Wash.,Seattle.130PP.
walton, J.M. 1982.Tbe effectsof an artificial reef on residentflatfish
populations'
Mar.Fish.Rev.44(&7):4548.
on smallpatch
Williamq,D. McB. 1980. Dlmamicsof the pomacentridcommuniry
30: 159-170'
reefsin onc Tree l-agoon(GreatBarrierReef). BulI' Mar' Sci'
salt march restoration
Willia:ns, P3. and H.T. Harvey. 1983. California coastal
of tttc ntirt Synposium
design w. &estal|nrc'8, VolameI. Proceedittgs
H' Com'erse'eds' pp'
on Coutal nd Ocutt Mougmtanf O.T. Magoouand
744+1456
Witsoqlcc,'P.LHaakerandD.A'Hanan|gTg.Restorationof'Magoqsis
wifera(Phaeoptryceae)atPalosVerdesPeninsula'CaliforniaProcedings
Synposiln:85-89'
of the NinthIntetnationalSeauteed
309
Scaiontr Utcrature Cited
the effea
Wilson,IiC. and R. McPeak 1983. Kelp restoratiou- lnz Synposiumon
of wastedbposalon lcelp.W. Bascom'ed. ScrippsInstinrteof Oceanography'
LaJolla, CA. PP.199'216PitasPoint
wilson, ICC and H.A. Togstad. 1987. Report of divingobservationsat
Dept Fish
Artificial Reef, 25 June 1982. Unpublisbeddraft rePorl Calil
Gone 11PP.
ReefAnsual
Wilson,ICC.,JJ. Grant andH*4- Toggtad.1981.PendletonArtificial
35
ProgressReport Reportto SouthernCaliforniaEdison'SCE81-RD-36'
Artificial Reef
Wilson, ICC- H'rr- Togptadand D.A. Aseltine. 1984. Pendleton
151pp'
Annual ProgressReporr Report to SouthernCaliforniaEdison'
1985' Pendleton
Wilsog ICC.' H,4. TogStad,D3- Aseltine and R-4. IJwis'
Solthern california
Artificial Reef and overviewof Progress. Report to
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
t
T
I
I
t
I
Edison 20 PP.
Woodhea4P.}vLI.,JJI.Parkerandl.W.Duedall.lgS2.Thecoal.wasteartificial
potential for frshing reef
reef program (c-wARP): a new resource
constnrctioo Mar. Fish' Rer''aa(&7): tG23'
salt marshes: A
tgSi- The ecologyof southern catifornia coastal
F1VS/OBS'8V54' 110
cornmunityprofrle. u.s. Fish and wildlife service
Zedler, J3.
PP.
310
t
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
l
Scttiotr
Utcrature Cited
coastalsalt marshes: A
7*dler, JB. 1982. Tbe ecologyof SoutheruCalifornia
F'WS, F',WS/OBScoEmunity profiIe. U.S. DepaftBent of the Interior,
8L/54.110PP.
approach' bz Coastal
7*dler,J.B. 1983. Salt marshrestoration: tbe experimental
on Coastalotd
htu ,g3, VolumeI. hocedittgs of the Ttird Symposium
oceqtMougenwnto.T.MagootrandH.Cowene,eds.pp.2578.2586.
SouthemCalifomia
Zpdler, J.B. 19g4. SaIt mqsh testordion: a guidebookfor
45pp.
catiforniaseaGrantReportNo. T-CSGCP'o09.
7*dier, J.B.
california coast'
1987. Mitigation problems on tbe soutbern
CaliforniaWaterfrontAge 3(1): 32'36'
Tiiuou estuary'Califomia ot
Z*dler,J.B. and C.S.Nordby. 1986. Theecotoglof
esnurircprofik.BiologicalReports5(75)U.S.Departmentoftbelnterior,
Program' 104pp'
Fish andwildlife sewiceand califorsia sea Grant
7*dler,JS,J.Covin,C.Nordby,P'WitliamrJ'Boland'1986'Catastrophicevents
vegetationin southerncalifornia
reveal the dpamic nature of salt-marsh
Esnraries9(1): 75-80'
7*dIer,J.B.,R.I.angis,J.cantiui,M.7a|ejko,ILswift'S.Rutherford.1988.
AssessingthefunctionsofmitigationmarshesinsouthernCalifornia
UnPublishedmanuscriPr 18PP'
311
I
This page intentionallY lsft ltank
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
SECTIONItr
RBCOMONS
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
CHAPIER T3
RECOMMENDAIIONS
the basisfor the MRCs mitigation recoururendations'
This chapterdiscusses
the MRCs
First, I discgssthe Permit and CCC guidelines that have governed
the generally
approachto mitigation (A generaloverviewof mitigation' including
review
acceptedmitigation priorities, is given in Cbapter 1.) Second,I briefly
of SONGS'
techniquestbat could potentially be 115edto mitigate the impac'ts
to the
Finally, I presenttwo optionsfor mitigating the effectsof SONGS,"Changes
chapteris to
Qesling System"and ?revention and Mitigation." The purposeof this
rePort to the
relate the infonnation presented in the first two sestionsof this
recorunendationsmadein the MRC's Final Report to the CCC'
l
13.1 APProach
I
l
I
hasbeenmandatedby
The MRCs approachto developingrecommendations
issuedby the CCC'
CoastalC-ommissiouPermit 183'73and subsequentguidelines
been considered(see
Altbougb rrariors laws and policiesrelated to mitigation have
havenot beenconstrainedor lirnited by tbem"
frapter 1), the recommendations
t
I
I
I
I
I
recommendingto the
The permit statcs that tbe MRC is reqponsiblefor
coolingsJEtemfor units 2 atd
c;omtnission"anychangesit believesnecessaryin the
3" (Condition8.4). Condition8'6 providesthat:
Shouldthestudyatanytineindicatgqhattheproiectwillnot.oTPll'
oi stat. or Federalwater qudity
witb the regulatory,"qno"-?i[
effects on the marine
agencies, dr tbai ,ubrd,ii;i-"ddfi
through the
eDvlronmentare likely to occur' or 31s-.seeurrine'
operation';i[;1;--Il, z -i'i]",r,-,
313
"piti.-s
striit immidiaterv
Chapter li!
undertake5ugfonsdificationsto the ssslingsystemas mayreasolably
be required to reduce such effects.or complywith sucb regulatory
q anO
be nade while conitiuction is.gginS^
reqgueme"ts-(*Ui.[-can
-b!-.s
q. the
tUat
if=
towers
Ln"orive as t"qniriog .ooling
;;itd
condition
further
then
recornmenaatioi).fti Gti-ConrFssion shill
the Permil ssssldingly.
In November t979 the CCC expressedinterest in evaluating means of
mitigating adverseeffectsother than changesto the geslingsystem,and directedthe
MRC asfollour:
The Commissioualso
migbt
measuresrruErrr
Or EUUgaUOIIl1easurcr
recgSnizes that OperatiOnal Changes 6ffitieation
.oip"'os"iJ-fot antdtine life danagesresuldngfrom
;A;il,"tt
ihFrefore,requests
io*-q,.I9lo,t":l^"91it-T
2 and3.' Tle Commission'
U"i1s2-and..3..n.$qprf
ofU-Ots
th;6p!t;"iionof
th;A;re-rafo"
prompmg
selecteq-PtggTq
e$ects of selectect
fea;fbility and effec'ts
th9 feasibility
titR,C to snrdy the
Oe ihe
tha
reel as
artificial
an
of
ionstruction
including
-c"ti?otn1"
-so"ii.ti,mitieation measures,
Eaison The MRc slqqld
il;?iiei'
u" - Southern
zuggEstedby
b:
there
to assure
;83"il;A?U"i.."i*"t
-igh-ue tatgo
Io-iE[-&i*J?nEiii6J-d-fi
Yolld_
*"itoo-Jotfr.-ogroperationof
LL/9/79'4/4/80)
SONGJUnisz a"o 3. (StatrReports
The permit statesthat the Committee is responsiblefor "recommending"'
(Condition
any changesit believesnecessaryin the coolingsJ6temfor Units 2 and3"
to
8.4), witb no mention of operational changesor mitigation Option 1: Changes
Option 2:
the Cooling Systenr"below, responds6 this charge. On the other hand'
light of the
Prevention snd Mitigation, below, considirs recommendationsin
the MRC first
November 1979resolution as well as the Permir Under Option \
canreasonably
recoEmendstechniquesfor reducingas manyof SONGS'impactsas
to mitigate the
be accomplishe4 and then recomnends replacementtechniques
priority was dosen
remaining lossesto the Point of no net advene effecl This
lossesis also gven
beca'se the permit stressesreduction of inpacts; preveuting
resourceagencies
precedenceover replacing lost resourcesby state and federal
costs and the
(Chapter 1). For each mitigation technique, initial and ongoing
314
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
T
T
I
I
l
t
I
T
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
Rccoonesdations
zmount of resourcesmitigatedare estinated. Horpever,manyof tbeseestinratesare
rougb at best,and sometechniquesshouldDot be requireduntil testsdeterminethat
they will substantiallyreducethe impactsof SONGS.
Condition 8.6 implies that recommendationsshould Pass a criterion of
and althougb the Commissionnakes the ultimate judgement of
"reasonableness,"
what is reasonable,this chaptersumnarizesinforcratioDon this matter, partianlarly
with regards to tbe risls and expensesof each tecbnique. Several technically
feasible techniques are not recom6ended because of associatedimpacts'
the
uncertainty, eIPeDseor a combination of factors, all of which bear on
techniques.
of recommended
"reasonableness"
132 Summaraof potentialmitigationtechniques
The previouschaptersof tbis technicalreport describeand evaluateavariety
due to
of techniquesthat could potentially be usedto Preventtbe los of resources
t
t
These
the operation of SONGS or comPensatefor the value of lost resogrces'
t
the impactsof
Table 13-2lists the most promisingtechniquesfor mitigating
selve to mitigate'
soNGS and indicatestbe resourcelosseseacb techniquecould
nearlyall identified
Two techniques,sseling to\ilersand reducedflow, could reduce
once-througbcooling
categoriesof impacts. Witb cooling tolvers' the existing
all of tbe
qystemwould be converted to a closed rysten, virnrally eliminating
imPactsto tbe marine environment
impactssnrdiedby the MRC. (Someadditional
I
I
I
I
I
techniquesare listed in Table 13-1.
315
Chapter lil
Table 13-1
List of potential techniquesfor mitigating the effectsof SONGS
AII tochniqucsr llclurling thocc lhat vould uot bc feasiblc or would not pnovide adequatc Ditigntion 8t
SONGS, are hcludcd in this lisL The uost promising tcchniqucs anc notcd by t.
Replacementtechniques
Lossreduction techniques
'Constnrst artificial reef
'Create newkelPbed
'Restorecoastalwetland
Constnrctfish batcherY
Coastalpresewation
Research
Information dissemination
(e.9, book)
Water qualiryimprovement
Intake
Morfified 63yslling Screen
(e.g.,low-pressrirewash,small mesh)
lnfrl6alisn bed
Porousdike
Barrier wstems
Movinq iirtate
'Sonic devices(poppen andhammers)
'Merqrry liehts
Electrir!fi;lds
Strobelishts
Bubble cunains
Waterjets
Discharye
i
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
'Relocate discharge
(to shallowor deepwater,
upcoart or do\rrDcoast)
Covlr diffuser ports with rock
Modifv diftsei Dorts
(g.d. increasi heigbt/cxit diarneter,
cn:rnseorscnargeange,
Changeio singte-fon discharge
Modiff bonom topograpby
Reducefl ow/reducePower
I
l
t
Replacattmt of coolingsystmr
rgsgling towers
Cooling ponds
Mdification of opmions
'Reduce flow/maintain full Power
'Rescheduleflow
Modi$ heattreatmentProcedures
316
I
I
I
I
I
I
Rccommendations
O A'EI
€E=g
t
E+;
=g E
E
s.9
5E
E9
TE;
l
=
a--
--ar
E
E€E
E.gD:
E
u2
tv--
g
t
t
I
I
I
I
l
-O
C)
GI
:-:-Es
9 'e
I
<8,
=
v
&
A.=.=
Frt\tt
vv*i
.-
€3s
=Yg
?
=t€
F\
-F-l
AVA-
! t.^.
EE€E
B.s,
E
!erED
e i
o0ta
.=b
ET
I
I
I
I
v
-= E€
o
F EEE
F gF;
t
t
Ix
-:i
yVV
38
.}E€
€:
I
I
I
--a
LJF
rr
Eggag
EE*
-
:E=9
s= E6 EEEE
E..EE
F
F
?
g
gEgiF
g:;5D
-=
=47y
= z=a=
Z Ef=;i
E
-s .gE:8
=.--E
c)
a)
0
t)
R
EF
3)
s
th
-l)
-s
g .=
!=E
4.2
E EaEE
Blr
l)
4
=
: = i?€
= €.=€i,
E
ggE-
.] EES.E
;. j i==
= =ee?
E IE=E
E
oE EO
EF:N
-=s)
a=
==-= Z
nEE a
+ + f3 .
-=
tiE
=
? ? EI
=r-
g
ET
a)
c;
1)ll
&
(2
c)
h.E
s5
q)
!)
-t!
=#^sg
o
1)
I
0
\
€=-5a
377
;
E e.=
E €33
E=ess
=4z.=s
I
Cbaptcr lil
t
might result from the small volume of dischargedwater from cooling towers,and
terrestrialand otherimpactswould certainlyoccur;seeSection5.12.)
Reduongthe flow of warcr througbSONGSwould not completelyeliminate
3ny inpacts, but it could potentially reducedl categoriesof lossesto someexteul
For organismsthat are entrainedby SONGS,reducingthe flow of water througbthe
plant would directly reduce the lossesdue to SONGS. Tbe relationship between
flow rate and resourcelossis lesscertain for giant kelp, kelp bed fishesand kelp bed
invertebrates(Section621} but reducedflow might result in somereductionin
impacts.
The remaining frve loss preventiontechniqueswould reduceimpactson two
the operationof SONGScouldreducethe losses
or three resources.Rescheduling
of fish larrrae and giant kelp. Changesto the diffuser system(either moving the
dischargeor modiSing the diffrser poru) could reducethe impacs ou giant kelp'
kelp bed fsh and kelp bed invertebrates. Finally, sonic devices,zuch as intake
reducethe lossof entrappedfish'
poppers(pneumaticguns),and light systems'could
.
reef
The mostpromisingreplacementtechniquesinctudeconsmlctingan artificial
in-kind
and restoring a degradedwetland. An artifrcial reef could serrteas
giant kelp' kelp
replacementfor kelp bed fish and invertebratesan4 if it zupported
by a restored
iaelf. The amount of in-lcind resonrcestbat would be provided
plan' A
wetland would depend on tbe paniarlar wetland and its restoration
bigb in'kind value'
restoration tbat provided large oPen-waterareascould provide
resources(e.9.'fish) as
or at leastwould enhancethe productionof tbe sametypeof
impactedby SONGS.
318
I
I
I
I
I
t
l
I
I
I
t
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
l
I
I
I
I
t
l
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
Rccormendations
Either an artificial reef or a restoredwetland couldprwide out-of-kind value
for any of the resource losses causedby SONGS. However, Table 13-2 also
distinguishesout-of-kind replacementthat would result in tbe substinrtion of tbe
6amegeneraltype of resource(e.g.,fish). Altholgb this tlpe of replacementhasnot
be distinguishedin establishedpublicationsor policies, it would be preferred over
out-of-kind mitigation resultiqg in completely dissimilar resources. Botb an
artificial reef and a restoredwetland coutdproducefisb as out-of-kindmitigatiou for
midwater and bottom fuh speciesimpactedby SONGS. Wetland restorationcould
also produce fish as out-of-kind mitigation for kelp bed fisb speciesimpacted by
soNGs.
The two mitigation options consideredin the Final Report to the CCC are
sumnarized in Table 13-3. The componentsand alternativesof theseoPtionsare
consideredin the rest of this chapter.
133 Option 1: Changes to the Cooling System
Conditions 8"4 and 8.6 of the Permit state that, if the MRC finds that
SONGS causes substantial adverse effects on the marine enviroument, the
Comminee is responsiblefor reconmending "sucb modifications to tbe cooling
q6tem as may reasonablybe requiredto reducesucheffects'.'"'
Tbere are reasonsbesidesthe mandate of the Persrit to prefer stnrctural
cbangesas a meansof reducingtbe impaas of SONGS. Strucnral cbaqgescould
remove or reducethe mechanisrnsof impacq therebyinsuringthat SONGShas the
leastpossibleimpact on the marine environment. Suchchangesnot only minimize
319
I
I
I
I
Chaptcr li!
Tsble 1}3
Options for reducingor rnitigating the impactsof SONGS
t
Optioo
lgl.hniquc
ObiectitE
Rccoonendatioa
t
1: Changesto cooling system
Optionla
Coolingtoxfets
Rcduccdl losscs
Rcject (WM, BM)
Acccpt (RF;
losscs
Reduccdisc,hargc
Rcject
Optionlb
Mwing discharge
Acccpt
(Unaaimous)
2: Preventionand mitigation
Ftshl-ossa
Rcducc0oui
Rc$hedulc o'pcratiousr
Artiftial rccf (60 hdl
Rcstorsrctlard (30toeOhdl
Rcdrce inpiagetlcst losscs
Rcducelanal fish losscs
(l-10% se&rctimsis
staditgstocb of sooe
spcdes)
ncOucefish iltaltc lcscs (21 tons/yt)
Iklp fuat cmnunity impoa
Artilicial recf (U0 ba)
I
RcplacelcclpconmunitYlosscs
(80ha tetp ad associatcd
irrcrtchatcs ald ftsh)
1 A combiaation of tbcsc techoiqucs could bc uscd as loag as ovcrall rcsult was complctc nitigation'
320
I
I
I
I
l
t
I
I
I
I
I
Recommendatioas
I
l
I
I
t
I
t
3
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
t
the impact a projest has on tbe local ecosj6terD,tbey also avoid tbe extremely
rliffisuh problems associatedwitb trying to (1) estimate tbe value of resources
produced by imperfectly understoodmitigation techniques,and (2) compare the
valuesof dissimilarresources.
In this section,I addresscturngesto &e cootiDgqntem at SONGSthat would
reduce the substantial impacts of SONGS. I foeus on the two alternatives,
constnrctingcooli4g towersand moving the discharge,that were consideredby the
MRC in its Find Report to the California CoastalCommission
U13.1 Option la. C.oolingtow€ns
Tbe substantialadverseimFactsof SONGSare directly related to the intalce
and dischargeof a large volume of water at SONGS;cooling to\r'erscould reduce
this florp by 90Voor more, thereby substantiallyreducingall of SONGS'effestson
the marine enviroumentthat the MRC hasmeastued.
Qosling tos'erspresenttbeir own suite of problems(disorssedin SaPter.S).
Any one of severaldifferent coolingtourerdesignscould be usedat SONGS,but all
havetechnicalor environnental problems One designtbat seemssuitedto the Saa
Onofre environment,dry cooling to$rers,hasneverbeenusedat a plant larger than
200 lyflil, so it is uncertain wbether the engineeringobstaclesof applying tbis
technologr to a 1100lvf\il scalecould be resolved;furthermore, dry cooling towerE
would be expectedto decreaseplant capacityby 20Vo. Wet cooling towerswould
also result in a sigUificantdecreasein plant caPaclty. Any decreasein efficiency
321
Cbapter 13
would likely increase emissionsin the Los Angeles Basin, becauseBasin Power
plantswould needto oPerateInore to makeup the lost power.
Salt water would be usedfor wet gsolingtowe$ at SanOnofre becarseof the
scarcityof fresh water, and the rezultingsatt drift could c:ilse nrbstantial terrestrial
imFactswithin a few rniles of the towe6. Althougb a smallervolume of water would
be dischargedfrom SONGSthan with the presentonce-tbroughcooling system'the
discbargedwater would have higtier concentratioosof toxic chemicaJsand other
sestnminants(which are r15edto preventcorrosion,scalingand biofouling).
Retrofitting SONGSfoy cooling towerswould be a complexengineeringand
logisticalproject SCE doesnot own the land on which the coolingtoweniwould be
built but.would need to acquire it from eitber Camp Pendletonor the State Park.
There may not be enougbroom to build the towersnext to Units 2 atd 3; if not' they
would needto be locatedat leail a mile awayfrom the plant on the other side of the
freeway. The intake pipes, which are pointing the wrong way, would need to be
extendedin a sreeping cirarlar plpe out and back up the beach. If the towers are
locatcd across&e &eeuay, thc pipcs would need to be buried deep beneath the
freeway(tbe Department of Transportationwould haveto give permissionto nrnnel
beneaththe freeway)and up into the hille, and additional PumPswould be needed
I
I
I
I
t
l"
t
I
I
I
I
I
l
T
would
to Etnte the water uPhiUagainsta head of about 200 feer The sea difB
probably haveto be destroyedno matterwbere the coolingtowetEwere constnrcted'
the
Cooling tower5 are also likely to affect human safety by increasing
would
frequencyof ground-levelfoggrngaround San Onofre. The cooling towers
produces
have to be located adjacentto Interstate5, wbereweather conditionsthat
32,
I
I
I
RccommcndatioBs
I
I
l
t
I
I
I
redu@visibility on the higbtl|ay'
a visible plgme from the towerswould sometfunes
Althougb this would probably ocor only rarety (according to the 1973 Final
Environmental Statementfor Unit 1, SCE estimatedthat conditions conduciveto
fog would probably occur dgring 90 hrs/year), the probability of automobile
accidens near SONGSwould be sligbtly highel as a result of constructingcooling
towers.
Finally, cooling towers are expensive,witb an estimatedcost of about $500
milliea to $1 billion for corstnrstion In additio& the decreasein plant capacity
t
would be expectedto costat leastanother$1 billion overthe life of the planr
I
I
I
T
I
Cooling tos'ers were consideredin the Final Environmeutal Statementfor
Unis 2 and 3 and by tbe MRC in its 1980report to the CCC' and in both cases
rejected as unnecessaryfor the anticipated level of impacts' None of the recent
t
I
I
I
I
t
information indicatesthat theywould now be a better alternative'
be
If cooling towers are required, their environmental impacts would
imPacts
substantially different from the impacts measuredby the MRC; tbese
impacts'
should be monitored even tbough they would be lower than the Present
of the
'The
appropriate monitoring would depend on the design characteristics
that would be
towers, so it is not possible to anticipate the specific monitoriqg
needed.
323
Chapter 13
1332 Option 1b. Moving the discharge
.An alternative to cooliug toweni is to move the dischargeso that &e plume
doesnot Passover tbe SanOnofre Kelp Bed- This would eliminate the impactson
the kelp bed.
This option has the following disadvantages(Section4.6): (1) Changesto
the discharge system mlrst accommodate the plant's frnely'tuned hydraulic
requiremerts, and this rest'icts the distanceat which a new dischargecould be
located. (Z) There would be new impacts on the marine environment,some of
whichwe are not able.topredict. (3) It would not reducethe adverseeffectson fuh
populatiouq which are causedby the egtrapmentof fish. (4) Although impactsto
the SanOnofre Kelp Bed would cease,it would take a period of time (perhapslong)
before &e kelp bed would recover, dgring which there would be a net loss of
resources.(5) The exactcostwould dependon the specificlocationand designof
the new discharge(and would reqgire a detailedanalysis),but would be hundredsof
millisa5 of dollars.
gliminats ongoing
Movigg the discharge is technically feasiblc, would
irnpacts to the San Onofre IGlp Be4 and would qruse only minor new
and
enrrironmentalirnpac6. However,movingthe discbargewill be vety exPensive,
with an
the impacts to the kelp forest commnnity can be adeqrately mitigated
artifrcial reef at zubstantiallylower cost
for mitigation
Tbe MRC wasunadmous in not recotnmendingthis technique
of SoNGS'irnFacts.
I
I
t
I
t
T
l,
I
I
I
l
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
l
I
I
I
I
I
Recosncndations
1!1.4 Option 2: Prevention and mitigation
Option 2 consistsof techniquesthat, combine4 could be usedto comPensate
for the resourceslost asa result of the operationof SONGS. The goal of this option
is to haveno net adverseeffea resultitg from the operationof SONGS.
The MRC has evaluatedmore than 30 different techniquesthat could be
usedfor preventingor mitigating lossesdue to SONGS(Table 13-1),most of which
haveneverbeenadequatelytested. Furthermore,developmentand testingof these
techniques has generally focused ou power plants that are much smaller than
SONGSand are not located on the coastof a temperateocean* It is therefore
dif6cult to evaluatetle feasibiiity of these techniquesat SONGS,and there is
uncertainty associatedwith even tbe most promising of them. In addition, there
t
have been few attempts to mitigate Dearshorecoastd impacts, so there is little
I
I
1
Option 2 arethetechniquestbe Committeefeelsare the mostlikely to be successful
precedenceor experiencefor guidance. The relatively few techniquesincluded in
with no unacceptableeffects.
The detailedrecommendationsin this sestionzre organizndaccordingto two
major categoriesof losses:fuh losses,and kelp forest communityimpacts.
t
I
I
1:i.4.1Fish losses
The MRC has recommendeda possible combination of four differest
techaiquesfor mitigatingthe fsh losses:(1) reducetbe numberof larvaeentrained
I
(by reduciag the flow rate at SONGS or other coastal Power sutions or by
I
325
t
Chapter lli
schedulingSONGSso it doesnot operateduring periodsof maximumabundanceof
fish larvae), (2) co$itnrct an artificial reef, (3) restorea wetland,srld (4) reducethe
I
I
I
t
in-plant lossof juvenile and adult fish.
Rescheduliagoperationsand reducingflow would preventlosscsof somefisb
lawae, but a substantialnumberof larv"acwould still be killed. There is no feasible
technique for replacing all of these larvae in-kind; althougb some in'kind
repiacementwould occur on an artificial reef or with wetland restoration, these
techniqueswould be primarily out-of-kind. An artificial reef or wetland restoradon
would also serveasmitigation for anyin-plant fish lossesthat cannotbe prevented.
This section discusseseach of these techniques. In addition' the MRC
recognizesthat different combinationsof the frrst three techniquescould eachresult
in completemitigation,and a frameworkfor combiningthe techniquesis presented'
andreduceflow
oPerations
13.4.1.1Reschedule
These npo techniques,consideredtogether becausethey could perhaps be
implcmeutedin a complementaryFanner, would be rsed to decreasethe lossof fish
tawae by reducingthe vohtmeof water that flows through SONGS' We presentthe
in
techniques in relation to SONGS, but note that an equivalent reducdon
entrainment from lower flow at other SCE coastalstationscould be an accePtable
zubstinrtion
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
326
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
T
t
Reconrnendations
Reschduleoperdiotts
The water flow througtrSONGSis shut off regularlyfor routine rneintenance
and refueling' By scheduling this donmtime duriry the period of maximum
abundanceof fuh lartae, the numberkilled couldbe reducedzubstantially.If tbe 60
dap a Unit is doum for refueling and maintenanceoccurred during March and
Apnl, lossesof fish lanne could be reducedby about 50Vo(table 13-a)' Obviously'
more dalr witb no flow will give grcztersavins but higher costs(aPProximately$4-7
milliss/week)to SCE.
Florv could be stopped each year dgring the period of highest larval
abundancewith either a 12-month or a 24-month refueling cycle. There are
technicaland financial objectionsto a 12-moutbcycle. Although difficult to achieve,
a 24-month cycle, witb UniS 2 and 3 down in alternate years' would have the
advantagesof fewer manPoweror safetyconflicts(whichwould occurif Units 2 zsd
3 were doqm at tbe sametime), a lower volume of radioactivewastes,and lower
costs.Even an l&montb refuelingcycle,centeredaroundtbe goal of reducingflow
fish
ia March and Apri! would provide a substantialreduction in the number of
killed.
in
In spite of the advantagesof,a2armouthcycle,unanticipatedintemrptions
to any set
tbe operation of SONGSand otber factorswill make i1 ditrianlt to adhere
to schedule
schedule(Section6.L2). In fact, it may be inpractical to require SCE
period of time' The
refueling and maintenanceat Uni6 2 or 3 during any specifrc
of which
period scheduledfor refuetingis subjectto a comPlexsuite of factors,nany
lan'al fub loses canbe substantially
are not under ScE s conuol. Nonetbeless,
3n
Cbapter lii
Table 13.4
Reduction in ichthyoplanlcton entrainment under different f,ow schedules
A. Totd ichthyoplanliCon
I
I
I
I
li
MoNn$wm{ No FIrw
MoN$rswrlll
6TVoFtow
Nonc
Feb to May
MAR
&APR
IvIAR
l,
FEB,
lvtAR,
& APR
lvIA&
AP&
& AUC
0Vo
32Vo
49Vo
8Vo
55Vo
26%
47%
58Vo
TlVo
64Vo
B. Specieswith estimatedAdult Equivalent lasses ) l7o'
MoNn$wmr No Fl,ow
I.IAR
&APR,
MoMlrswnH
67%Ft,o'vl
None
Feb to May
F'Ets,
MA&
&APR
lvlA&
APR,
& AUG
0%
a%
8%
55%
9%
a%
42%
94Vo
59%
65%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Recommcndations
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
t
I
I
I
reducedif SONGS can be scheduledto avoid operatioDsduring March and April'
and the adoption by SCE of a policy that minimizes operationsduring periods of
higb larval abundancesshouldbe encouraged.
Re&tceflow
Reducingthe rate of water flow througb SONGSwhile operatingtbe plant at
full powerwould alsoreducelossesof fish larvae. The flow rate couldpotentially be
reducedby 33Vo;a33Voreductionwould maintain the thermal standardof < 4oF
increaseat 1000feet from the diffusers,althougb a waiver would be required to
allow an increaseacrossthe condenserof 30pFinsteadof 20"F. Operatingthe plant
at 67Voflow for February through May (and full flow tbe rest of the year) would
reducefish larval lossesby 26Vo(Table 134). (Most of the savingsin February
comesfrom anchovies.)Savingswould be somewhalhigherif flow wasreducedfor
are not partianlarlyhigh in October
more months;however,fuh larval abundances
througb January, and higher water temPeranrresafter June would reduce the
efficiencyof the tgrbinesand substantiallyincreasecosts.
The costsof this tecbnigueinclude $10 rnitlion to retrofrt the pumps,plus
annual coststbat dependon (1) when flow is reducedand (2) the number of dap
with reduced flow. For technicaland financial reasons!it night be best to reduce
flow duriag the monthswitb low arrbient water"temPeranlres'(One exccption: the
potential savingsin specieswith hig! adult equivalentlossescould make operating
to
at reducedflow in Augustworthwhile.) Alternatively,it might be best simply
powel
allow scE adjust the flow in resPonseto ambient conditions and
For
requirements,as long as the requiredreductionin entrainmentwas achieved'
329
Chapter 13
tbe proposedFebruary-to-Mayreduction, the annual costscould be as higb as $5
million for both units (Section623).
In addition to reducingthe flon' rate througb SONGS,SCE night be able to
reducelarrratent'ainrnent by reducingthe volume of water Passingthrough coastal
po\rrerplants besidesSONGS. Studiesat SONGSindicate that the thermal effluent
from the plant is of little environmental concerlt. We believe that the
I
I
I
I
I
I
environmentaladvantigesof reducedflow that can be achievedby havinga bigber
condensertemper:rturewill generallyoutweigbany potential environmentalhazards
t
a
at coastalpower plants. The gfeatestemrironmentalprotection might result from
waiver of thermal standards at SCEs coastal power plan6 since this would
few other
Erostabundantand to reducethe flow of water throughthe plant during a
the spedfic
months. Of course,the actgal savins in larvae will vary dependingon
I
I
I
I
I
I
timing implemented; no flow dgring March and APril and 67Vo flow during
(Table 13a)' Even
Februaryand Maywould reducelarval fisb lossesby nearJy60vo
t
May would yield a
with only otre lro1th of no florr, reducedflow from Februaryto
I
combinedsvings of nearlY50Vo.
t
minimioethe volumeof waterpumpedthrougbthe plantsopuationsand re&rcelbw
Reschedule
to
The most cost-effestivemeansof reducinglossesof fish lanraewould be
larvae are
scheduleSONGS,wheneverpossible,so it does not operate when fish
or reducingthe
No biological monitoring would be required,for rescheduling
flow rate througbSONGS.
I
I
I
Recommcndations
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
13'4'1'2High:reliefanificialreef
An artificial reef would produce a variety of reef resources' the algal'
inveftebrate and fish communitieson artificial reefs are similar to tboseon narural
reefs, and tbere are data indicating tbat some fish production does occrr on
artifrcial reefs. Artifrcial reefs are one of only two rcchniques(the otber being
wetland restoration) availablefor produciqgnearshoremarine resources'and their
usefor mitigating gnavoidablelossescould be appropriateif approachedcautiorsly'
For exarrple, the problems associatedwitb using an artificial reef as out-of'kind
mitigation include uncertaintyabout tbe amountof fsh produced(Section82) and
the need to comparethe value of dissimilar resources. The size and designof an
artificial reef used as out-of-kind mitigation should take into account these
uncertainties.
'
Any estimateof the sizpof'reef neededwill be nainly a bestgpess'and since
with
tbere is no impact to a qpecific habitat it is not posibte to come up
the fuh
replacementratios. To estimatetbe reef size neededto compensatefor
to area of
losses,I have convertedtbe fish lossesfrom biomassof mid-water fisb
none of tbe
reef. This approac;hrelies on m"ny rpugb estimates,since virtgally
information is acanrarclyknonm' and on a judgementabout tbe relative
Decessary
and the
wortb of midwater fub verss a roclsyreef cornmunity. Thesecalculations,
Using the values
assgmptionsuPogwhich they are base4 are givenin AppendixD'
would comPensate
describedin Appendix D, I estimatethat a 6trha artifrcial reef
a smdler
for the all of tbe unavoidabtefub losses.(As discussedin Section13'4'1'4'
to mitigate the fisb
artificial reef could also be combinedwith othei' techniques
losses.)
331
Chapter lil
Monitoring the mitigation reef is an integral part of this recommendation'
The physicat stnrcture of the relf should be monitored immediately after
colstnrction to ver$ tbat it mee13the designspecifications;if it doesnot, additional
principal
constnrctiousbould be reqgired to bring it up to the specifications.The
the
evaluationof this techniqueshould take the form of a comprehensivesildy of
frve
anount of fish producedon the ree! to be completedover a period of perhaps
years(and probably commencingsouteyearsafter reef constrtrction). Uncertainty
in
about the amount of fish produced on artificial reeft hampers tbeir use
for
mitigation, so the information from tbis snrdy will be extremely valuable
evaluatingfuture proposalsto useartificial reefsasmitigation'
Cost of constnrsringa high-relief anifrcial reef is estimatedto be $250'000
$15
per ha (SectionE3.4), so the costof coilimrctinga 6$ha reef would be about
million
13.4.1.3Restorewetland
nrrseries for
coastat wetlands are naluable habitats becase they serve as
and endangered
somc madne frsb, are productive, ad prwide habitat for rare
wetlandsremain and
species.In SouthernCatifornie lessthan $Vo of,theoriginal
would be an
nearty all of these havc been degraded. wetland restoradon
by soNGS'
appropriatemeansof mitigating the lossof frshlarvaecarsed
are: (1) I-ocuion'
Two dirficulties with implementing tbis technique
rWetlandsin Southern California are in higb demand for re$oration and the
in the Huntinglon Beach
alteruatives are limite4 but SCE owns some property
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
Rccommcndations
wetland and there are several other possibilities (including purchasiqg more
Huntingfon Beacb ProPeny or restoring another wetland such as the Ballona
Wetland; Sestion10.4.1). (2) Amowt of restorwionneeded.As witb all out-of-kind
techniques,it is difEcult to determinethe amount of mitigation neededto achieve
the appropriate amount of replacement; this is paniarlarly 9iffi*tt under the
present circrmstances,where tbe impacted resourcesare tied to a habitat (open
water) that we cannotrestore. Furthermore,the aYnountof restorationneededwill
depend on the specific design of tbe restoration: shallov-water habitats such as
esilaries and embaymentswill provide more in-kind, and perbapsout-of-kind,value
than most salt marshes,although marsb habitat that supporu endangeredspecies
would be especiallyvaluable. While it is impossibleto determinepreciseiythe
amountof restoratiouneede4we proposethat, dependingon the partiarlars,30 to
60 ha would adequatelymitigatefor tbe fish losses(Section1052).,
If wetland restoration is chosento replace losses,tbe restoratioDmust be
monitored carefully to iruure that it is successful.Previousmonitoring efforts have
generallyevaluatedonly wbether transplantedvegetationgrew as expected;this is
not suffrcienl Specificcriteria for srccess(ie, partiarlar hydrological,physicaland
their
biological cbaracteristicsthat must be realized) and tbe time frame for
If
achievementsbould be establishedwhen the restoration plan is developed'
monitoring indicatesthat tbeseobjectiveshavenot beea accomplisbedon scbedule,
is made
additional efforS shouldbe required to ensuretbat the bestpossibleeffort
over a
to establisb tbe target comrrunity. The monitoring would be completed
period of perhaPsfive Years.
5JJ
Chaptcr lil
The cost of restoring a wetland will vary tre6esdously depenrlingon tbe
qpecificproject, and especiallywhether of not tbe land must be purchased' Using a
to $300,000Per ha (Section 10.42), the cost of
general estrrnateof S1001000
restoring30 to 60 hawould be benreen$l millieg and S18million
13.4.1.4Combinedapproachto mitigatinglossesof fish lalae
Different combinations of the previors three techniques (reducing
ssg,einmgDt,constructing an artificial reef, and restoring a wetland) could each
result |a gsrnpletemitigation for the lossof fish laryac. A frameworkfor combining
thesetechniqueswould allow the CCC to choosea mix of the tbree techniques,but
would insure that the impact is fully mitigatedis
The relative value of reducing the entrainment of fish lan'ae
straigbtfonrard: eac.hpercentreductionin entrainmentlosseswould be one Percent
of the rmoutt needed for complete mitigation Of course,short of consmrcting
prevente4 so
soeling towers, the entrainment of frsh lanae €nnot be completely
sone other techniqueEust be combinedwith this one'
whether SCE
From the perspectiveof the resogrcessavedit doesnot Eatter
tbe flow of
reducesentrainmentby reschedutingthe operationsof SONG$ reducing
for reducing
water through the plant, or both. Howerrer,tbesc two tecbniques
Reschedulingthe
en6ain6ent are not equal in eascof achierremcntor accpunting'
in this repr{ since
operation of SONGS wiU be partiorlarly problematic
It migbt be most
unexpectedeventswill certainly impinge on any desiredschedule'
an averageof several
reasonableto oQest a partiorlar.level of performanceover
I
I
I
I
I
Rccoomcndatioas
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
years,ratber than requiring a strict schedulein any partiqilar year. In any case,
ssglining both reducedflow and reschedulingwould provide additional flexibility
for meetinga target reduction in larvd losses.
orr best estimarcsindicate tbat either constructin,ga 6trha artificial reef or
restoring a 6$ha wetland would omplercly conrpensatefor the los of fish larvae
the
Cfhis estimate for wetland restoration is rsed bere for illustration PurPoses;
acnralwetland valuewill dependon the Danrreof the restorationProposed.) Based
on thesenumben, one ha of artificial reef is wortb tNVo/60=t-67Voof the total
mitigation neede( and each ha of wetland is worth tA0Vo/60=t.67Voof the
required total.
Complete mitigation for ttre fsh lan'al losseswould be achievedwhen the
combination of techniquesadds uP to [ffJVo. For example,complete nitigation
would be accomplisbedby the combinatiorugivenin Table 13'5.
Table 1$5
Qsnlining mitigation techniques- Examples
E)( TAE2
E,GIIPLEl
AIIIOT,NT
Rcductionin atraianeot
8%
HigD-rcliefsrti$cisl rccf
24ha,
Wctland rcstoratioa
2/-ba
335
REIAIWE
VAI.IJE
AMOT'NT
REIATT\IE
VALT'E
Wo
fi%
s%
25ba
42%
0
0%
.4%
ryh
Chapter lii
By this method of combining techniques,each tecbnique is considered
equally acceptablefor mitigation- In fact, there is an advantageto preventingthe
entrainment of larvae, since this will reduce the los of real fish (as opposedto
compensatingon the basisof inferred losses)and doesnot rely on the assumptions
needed to determine the appropriate anount of out-of-kind mitigation On the
otber han4 an artifrcial reef or wetland restorationwould satisfactorilymitigate any
gnavoidablefish lossis. Althougb there is a great deal of uncertainty about the
appropriate sizesfor theseprojects,one factor favorsuslng thEsetechniques: they
will continue to produce resourcesafter SONGS has stopped operating' An
T
I
I
T.
I
l'
I
I
ardfrcial reef or wetland restorationbas the potential for actually having a greater
long-termresourcevalue than a preventiontechnique.
losses
13.4.1.5Reducefish impingement
SONGSalreadyemplop two techniquesfor reducingrridwater fish losses:
velocity qIPs on the intakes, atrd the Fish Renrn System. Althougb these two
20
rcchniquesreduce the ngmber of frsh entrappedand killed by the planl at least
to 50 metric tons (MT) of frsh are still killed eachyear'
Tbere may be new techniquestbat could be usedto reducethe inpingement
potentially
of fish. Meragy lights and sonic devicesare two techniquesthat could
has
reducethe impactsof SONGSon midwaterfish populations' Neither tecbnique
evaluated
been adequately tested in the fiel4 so they shoutd be experimentally
for units 2 and 3 is
before being required at soNGS. Tbe alrangementof intakes
be operated
paniorlarly suitablefor controlled testsof thesesystems;a q6tem could
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'l
Recooncodatioos
:
I
I
I
'r
I
I
I
I
:
,l
I
I
rl
:I
I
I
I
I
I
at one unit, and entraPrgert when the qstem is operati4g compared (using
simultaneors24-hoursamples)to entraPmentover tbe sameperiod and flow rate at
the otber unir To control for differencesin the speciesentrapPedby the two Units,
tbe test and control units could alrcrsate betweenUnits 2 and3 during a seriesof
trials. Effectivenessshouldbe evaluatedin rcrms of overall fish entrappedand on a
basis;both numben and biomasssbouldbe considered.The tests
species-by-species
shouldbe performeddruing normal operationsand during heattreatmeng.
MercuryEghs
Merclry lights would be usedin the Fish Renrrn Systemcharnberto attract
fish out of the screenwell.This could increasetbe diversioneffrciencyof tbe FRS at
all times, but would be partiarlady important during heat treatmentsbecausetbe
fuh killed duriqg heat treatmens tend to be tbe largest and most economically
important of thosekilled by SONGS(Section333.1). Meranrylights (perbapsin
conjunctiogwitbsonicdevices)rnighlbeabletos:lveuPto3MToftheselargefish
per year. The costof mercurylighs is estimatedto be rougbly$100'000'
becarse they appear to be a simple and
Meranry ligh6 are regg1gtrlended
inexpensiveway to reducelosses.But they night not be worth implementingif they
are not effective or do Dot Proveto be simple and inexpensive,so a feasibility smdy
shouldbe performedbefore they are implemented"
Sonicdevices
be
Sonic devices,sucb as pneumaticgtlns ("PoPPers")or "harnmers'"could
Return
placed in tbe screenwellarea to increasediversion of fish into the Fish
Cbapter 13
in the
Systemand/or at the intakes to reduce eutr:rPmentof fish' Sonic devices
enfapped'
screenwellisea are likely to be effectivefor all speciesand sizesof fisb
benefrt the most because they are
(perhaps in
disproportionately kilted dgring heat treaturenr. Sonic devices
frsh per year
conjunctionwitb merorry lighrc) night be able to saveup to 3 MT of
is rougbly
(Section 33.1.1). The cost of sonic devices in the screenwell area
although large individuals night
estimatedto be about $100,000.
schooling
sonic devicesat the intake would probably be most effective for
in tbe vicinity
fish. Transient schoolingspeciessuchas noftheru anchovywould be
dispene
of SONGS,intakesfor only a short time, so sonic devicesmight effectively
If the sonic
these fish away from tbe intakes without habinration to the devices'
will saveabout 0'4
devicescan reducethe entraPmentof schoolingfrsh by S}Vo,they
comprisea large
MT of fish (section 33.1.1). The speciesthat would be saved
and youngerfuh
runbq of the fisb entrappedfy soNGS, but they are the smaller
entrapped' The cost
of those entrappedand do not conUibutemuch to the weigbt
of sonicdevicesat the intakesis rougblyestimatedto be $300'000'
13.42 Kelp forest communityimpacts
13.4.2.1r '.w-reliefartifigiplreef wth kelP
Kelp Bed could be
The fractiou of tbe ketp communitylost at san onofre
qnd maintains a kelp bed'
replacedby consmrctingan artificial reef that develops
becausethere is substantial
Few artificial reeB have been used for mitigation
(SeAions82 and g'L2)' To insurethat
uncertaintyabout the resourcesthey provide
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
T
Recomncndatiors
an artificial reef provides adequatemitigation for kelp losses,the reef sbould be
Iarger than the imFactedree! since (1) kelp would probably not cover the entire
reef, (2) the densityof kelp night be lower on the artificial reef, and (3) the kelp
communityon the artificial reef -ight not be asproductiveor diverseT th" naffial
community. This approach,in which the ratio of createdhabitat to impactedhabitat
is greater than one, has been used extensivelyin nitigation
The MRC has
recornmendedtbat tbe artifrcial reef be 15 times the impactedarea; in the caseof
SOK where the impactedareais 80 ba the artifrcial reef shouldbe 120ha
In order to insurethat the communitythat developson the rnitigation reef is
as similar as possibleto the impactedcornmunityat SOK the physicalstrudure of
the reef shouldbe as similar aspossibleto SOKs. In partiarlar, there are few kelp
bedsin SouthernCaliforniain which the kelp plantsgrow on'cobbles"or scattered
boulders as in SOK and this phpical stnrcture would be needed to replace the
charasteristicorgaqisrnsthat live in this habitat- Ideally, the substrateitself should
rnimis SOK that is, it shoutdconsistof cobblesand bouldersidenticalto thoseat
SOK However,there is a risk that a low-relief artificial reef will be more Proneto
being ingndatedby sand tban a high-reliefreef; this risk could 6s minimized.by
gsingsomelarger rocls and havingoccasionalareasof somewhathigber relief.
Two difficulties with implementingthis techniqueare: (l) I-ocation ldeally'
the reef shouldbe located as closeas possibleto SOK but if it is too closeit also
will be impacted by SONGS. Likely locations for the mitigation reef include
upcoastand dou,ncoastof SMK and severalkm downcoastof SOK Becausethere
is a possibitity of unfavorable physical conditions (e.g, high nrbidity aod
sedimentation)in unlsrownlocatioru,potentialsitesshouldbe tboroughlysurveyed
339
Chapter 13
before &s final location is determined. As an additional safegUard'the reef couid
be constnrctedin stages,wi& ongoingmonitoring and a careful evaluation of the
for
data before each stage to insure that the site is nritable. (2) Teclmiqu?.s
ketp. Nthough kelp is no\rrpresenton severalartificial reefs,there have
estabtishing
been manyproblemswith establishingkelp on artificial reefs. Different tecbniques
are available for establishingkelp, including transplanting adults, ransplanting
in an
sporophylls,&d ouptanting juveniles. Thesetechniquescould be employed
experimentaldesigndgring thc frrst year after constructio!' with a decisionabout
has
yearsmade after their effectiveness
fte rcghnique(s)to be usediu successive
been evaluated.
this
Independent monitoring of the artifrcial reef is an integral asPectof
quickly on
recommendation First, it is essentialthat grantkelp becomeestablished
establisha
the reef and that it persists. Performancecriteria could be used to
giant keip
timetable for giant kelp development,for orarrple, establishnent of
on
within 3 years; if monitoring indicatesthat gant kelp has not been established
cornmunity is
schedule, additional efforts should be required nntil the target
invertebrates
established. Becausethe densities of frsh and benthic algae and
at SOK in the
shouldevennrallybe similar to the densitiesthat would haveocctu,red
absenceof SONG$ inpacts, theseorganismsalsosbouldbc monitored'
$75'000per
The cost of a low-relief artificial reef is estimatedto be rougbly
reef is estimatedto
ha (Section 83.4); the cost of establishingkelp on the artifrcial
g23). The total cost of constructinga 12$ha
bc severalmillion dollars (section
million
low-reliefarrifrcialreef with kelp is estimatedto be abouts1s12
340
I
I
I
I
I
I
'-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
Recommesdations
t
il15 SummarT
Two options for mitigating the irnpacts of SONGS oD the marine
environment, correqponding to Coastal Commission directives, have been
consideredby the MRC.
The first option consisg of large-scalecba'ges to the cooling sJEteEat
SONGS,either replacingthe open-cyclesptem witb a closed'cydecooling to\r'er or
movingthe discbargefrom SONGSawayfrom the SanOnofre Kelp Bed' Although
eacb of these techniqueswould zubstantiallyreduce the impacts of SONGS,each
also has.associatedtechnical difFculties, othet environmental impacts, and higb
costs.Dr. Fay recommendedconstnrctingcoolingtowers;the MRC wasunanimous
movingthe discharge(Table 13'3)'
in not reco?nrqending
The secondoption consissof a variety of techniquesto Preventand mitigate
Iossesdue to SONGS; this opion was unanimorsty recotrtmendedby the MRC'
Impactsto fish resourcescould be mitigated by reducingthe flow of water througb
SONGS, rescheduling the plant to avoid periods of high larvd abundance'
constnrcting a ligh-relief
artificial reef, restoring a coastal wetlan{
and
foru of
implementing new techniquesfor reducing impingementlosses' Tbe first
complete
these techniques could be used in variors combinatiogs to acbieve
t
could be
replacement of lost resources. ImFacE to the kelp forest cornmunity
regioa
mitigated by constmctinga 120ha low-relief anificial reef in the SanOnofre
I
I
I
341
t
I
t
This pageintentionallYleft btank
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
APPEI{DICES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
APPEI{DX A
DESCRIPTIONOF COOLINGSYSTEMAT SONGS
Note that, througboutthis appendix,we usegallonsper minute (GPM) and
feet per second(FPS) rather tban the metric equivalentsbecatrsetheseunits are
usedalmostexclusivelyby engineenandin the releventdoc@ents.
Operationof SongsUnits 2 and 3
SONGSUnits 2 ztd 3 are similar in designand operations. They differ in
only 2 aspeds;they are mirror imagesand the dischargepipe for Unit 2 extends
farther offshore than the pipe for Unit 3 (Figure A-1). The following sections
dessribetbe stnrctue and operationof both ttsits.
Intalre
Eaenrrnil !35 a separateintake structurelocated970m offshoreat a deptb
of 9.1 Dr; tbe intakes are?-00m aPartatongshore.Each intake is 85 m (28 ft) in
dia-erc, and extendsvertically so that tbe openingis 2.9 m (g t/2 ft) abovethe
bottom (Figure AA). Thereis a3 m (10 ft) lip aroundthe openiqg.The intake has
a velocity cap that is supportedby columnsand lies LL m Q q abovethe opening
(Figrre A-Z). About 52A m3/s(830,0mgpn) of water is drawninto tbe intake at a
crurentspeedof 05 m/s. Tbe watet is transportedto the plant at a velocity of'22
m/s (73 fps) tbrougba 55 m dianeter pipe that is buried about t2a
underthe
surfaceof tbe oceanbottom- A muchsmaller,auxiliaryintakeis locatedabout30 m
sborewardof the prinary intake'and is availablefor emergencies(e.g-,when
A-1
sonething happensto the prirary iutake, sone water is still able to enter the plant
througb the auxiliary intake).
Inplant
The intake pipe connectsto a 45 m (16 ft) squarebox-conduitonshore,at
the seawall On the plant-sideof the seawall,there is an openslot in the top of the
couduitfor a stopgate (alsocalledthe tsunami gate). A reinforcedconcretegate
canbe'lowere4from the plant yard,dowuthis openingto closeoff the box conduit
and prevetrtwater fron enteringthe plant throughthe intake pipe. Down stream
from the stopgate openingis a gate counectingthe intake and dischargeconduits
which is openedto reckqrlate heatedwater during heat treatments. The intake
conduitthen transitionsinto tbe screenwellsmrcnrre(FigureA-3). B'ffles at'Jre
entranceof the scrcenwellspreadthe water flow over the channelas it widensand
the water velocity slonn to 0.8 m/s (Z7Ss). The channelwidensto 125 m (41 ft)
.
<^
?
overa distanceof 21.7m(715'ft) andthennarows. As it narrows,the mainvolume
of water turtrs througb a 7@ angle and passesthrougb traveling bar racks and
screetrs. Guiding vanes aligned with the inconing water'flow in the narrowing
channeldirect the water so that the florr overthe bar racksis unifonq thusreducing
turbulence. The renaining water is firnnelled into the collestionbay of the Fish
Retum Sprcm (FRS).
There are 6 adjacentsets of travelingbar racls and screens(Figure A-3)'
Each bar rack is made of articnlatedpanelsof vertical slats- The slats are about
1/4" wide, 2 t/T deepand 2 fr higb; rhe l/a
' surfacefacesthe oncomingflow of
the
water. The gap betweenadjacentslatsis about 1l/T' Debrisis trappedon
tread for
slats as water Passesthrougb the racft. The rack rotates like a tank
A-2
I
I
I
T
T
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
cleaning. Rotation is triggeredarrtomatically(usuallya fcw times a day) by tbe
about 4" wide, attachedto
pressuredifferenceacrossthe raclc Horizontal shelveso
the panelshelp lift the accunulateddebrisout of the water. Debris is washedfrom
the racls witb a highpressge !pny, and travelsthrougba sluiceto a collestionbin
Debris that passesthrougb the bar rack is collesad on a 95 'nm (3/8") mesh
traveliqg screeudirectly donmstream(FigureA-3). The screenalso rotatesand is
cleanedby a high pressurespray(FigureA4). The debrisfrom the screeDstravels
tbrougba secondsluiceand is collectedin anotherbin Evenfirally,all tbe debrb is
transferredto largerasb containenand hauledawayto a landfill.
After passingthrougbtbe screens,a small volume of water is withdrawnfor
the rack and screenwash and for nuclearco6poDentsseling (Figure A-5). Tbe
punps for the bar :ind screenwashremovewater at a rate of about0.13d/s (2000
gpm),but tbe water is dischargedbackinto tbe screemn'ell.hrmps for the nuclear
componentcooling loop eachwitbdrawabout 1.1m3/s (17,000gpm) of water; one
to four pumps (usuallytrro) operatesimultaneorsly. The remainiugwater (512
m3/s)is pumpedfrom tbe screqrwellby four large cirorlatingPunps. EachPumPis
gpm) and 11.6n (38.0ft) of head.
a wet pit-t1pePuqp, rarcd at U|.0 m3/s Q-A7500
(Onefoot of beadis tbe energrreguiredto purrp x anount of waterto a heightof 1
foot abovesealevel) Lesstbas 0.1 n3/s (1,000glrn) of the uater is usedJor the
Fish Retgrn System,Z1 m3/s (34,000)goesto the auxiliary ttrrbine plant cooling
loop, andthe remaindertravelsto the condenserwhereit coolsthe steamgenerated
by the reactorto operatethe nrrbines(FigureA-5).
The elevation of the bottom of the screeuwellstnrctureis -26 ft, wbere 0
elevationis mean sealevel (Figure A-6). As the PumPswithdrawwater from the
screenwell,water from tbe btake pipe nshes into tbe screenwellundertbe force of
A-3
gravityto take the placeof the water that was removed. There is an "energrcost"
associatedwith the trarsport of water into the scriemnrellfrom the intake stnrcture.
This costresultsfrom fristion betweenthe inner surfaceof the intake pipe and the
florring water, and arbulenge as the water passesthrougb the bnffles into the
screeswell The costis measuredin feet of head(tbe sameBeasureusedto rate the
circulatingpuEps, seeabove). As a result of the lossof headfeet aswater Passes
whenall punps are operating the
througb&e intake pipe and into the screeurpell,
level of the water in the screemrellis about8 feet belowEeaa sealevel Sincesea
level changeswith the tides,tbe waterlevel in the screenwell canvary from about3
ft to 10 ft below 0 elevationduring extremetides. As the intake pipe becomes
fouledby scssilemarine organis65suchasmusselsandbarnacle$the beadlos due
to friction inseases. This causesa further drop in the water level in the screenwell.
The intake pipesof both units are periodicallyflushedwith heatedwater to remove
fouling organisnsandthusrninimizethe headlossdueto friction
The cir-arlatingpunps are placedso that tbe intake ports are at an elevation
of about At ft- The intake ports mustsit well belon'the surfaceof the water in the
so tbat air is aot drawninto the pumps.If a pury sitsin watertbat is too
screenrrrell
shallorr,a yoilcx wiU be createdas the punp nrcls water from the screempelland
air bubbles\rill bs dracn into the pury (cavitation). The bubblescan da'nagethe
propeller bV pitting the nrface of the blades If too much air in drawn into the
Irunp, itwill loseprime and shutdoum.
The condenserhas nro shells (also called waterboxes). About 125 m3/s
(199,00)of watcr is transportedfrom eacbpunp to tbe condenserthrougb zL4 m
(8 ft) sqlrarebox conduir The conduis from two pumPssuPplythe uear shell and
the conduitsfrom the other two punps are routed to tbe far shell (Figure A-5)-
A-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
Each conduit traositionsto a pipe whicb risesvertically and theu turos to euter the
coadenserwaterbor As the waterpassesthrougbtbe condenserat a velocityof 2J
m/s, the teurperatureincreases10.?'C(20oF).
Two pipes from each shell of the condensercarry the hearcdwater to a
conmon 4.9 m (16 ft) squarebox conduit for discharge.lVarcr from the uuclear
componetrtcooling and the nubine plant coolingtoopsdso flow into the ooElElon
dischargeconduif The combinedflow tbenpassesover the sealwell weir. The seal
well weir is a dam that maintainsa constantlonrerlimit for the hydraulicgradeline
to ensgrethat water siphonstbrougbtbe eondenserproperly. If the hydraulicgrade
line is too steep (e.g, during extrene low tides), tbe siphoning effect of the
side of the condenseris excessiveand causesa
ciranlatingwater on the dise.harge
break in the siphon in the condenser. When the siphoa breaJrs'air enters the
condensernrbesandthe efficiencyof the heatexchange
Prooessdeclines'
Dou6streaa from the weir, a crossoverbox conduit branchesoff tbe rnain
dischargeconduif Normally, the gate at tbe entraoceto tbe crossovelconduit is
close4 but during heat featments it is openedto allow recirarlatiou of heated
water.
jrst
Tbere is an open slot in the top of the dischargecoaduitfor a stopgate
upsaeamfrom the seawall At this Poitrt tbe dischargeconduitis right next to the
intake conduif A stopgate, like the one for the irtake, can be loweredfrom tbe
plant yard into the opening,to closetbe conduitandpreventthe flow of waterout of
or into the plant througbtbe dischargepipe.
A-5
'l
At the shoreline,the box couduitjoins to a 55 m (18 ft) dianeter discharge
pipe that transpors the water to the diffrser. The dischargepipesfor Unit 2 asd
buried 1'4 m
.Unit 3 extend 1950m and 1150m ofthore, respectively both are
under the srbstratesurnace.At the end of eachdischargepipe is a difhser' Each
difrtser is 762 m long and has 63 pottt, spacedL?2 m apart Each port was
designedto rise ?-7 mabovethe bonon with a flared'openingthat is positionedso
thatwater is dischargedat a 2@ an$efrom the horizontal The pora are alternately
atignedat anglesof 25oto eachside of the pipe pointing ofthore' The maximum
dischargevelocityis 4 m/s. At intervals of.?54m alongthe difftrser,the diameterof
(18 ft) to
the diffgserpipe decreases
W L2m (a ft) from an initial diameterof 55 m
4 final diameter of 3.1 m (10 ft). The decreasein pipe dianeter maintains a
in the diffirserso the dischargevelocityis relatively
relativelyconstantbackpressure
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
for all63 Pora.
coDstaDt
I
A-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Fish ReturnConduit
Disehorge
I
unit I
t
I
I
I
unit2
,"L
Offshore Intokes
Diffuse
T
I
I
I
I
B.
DISTANCEFROM SHOREIN IOOOFEET
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
?]0+
{
.F
-
30=
'11
40H-{
50
/
ers
60
Figure A-1. Schematic of ofishore cooling system strustures at SONGS.
'l
t
z?tFtt
tr\
r/t
r.?lt
nitEE
-jl-
\
Y
:
'ol'c
'iLl', !'-d
toct
I fE^ atlvg.
lsl!i(E-
I r-c
3
t:-o'
l/.'I|rug
€rai':-
t*-
!! -r'
?lErtE
! =-
Etr3.E_rr..
cap
FioureA-2. Oftshoreintakestrueturetor SONGSUnlts2and 3' Velocity
teFes to reducethe entrapmentof fish'
A-8
I
I
.F--J
tt? -rEl
o
.>-T
ot
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f, i'i
I
I
o
o
?
le
h\
C)
=
tr
t-
b
I
e:r
ll ,t-
at
od
EED
c)
i?
H'=
9
l
bl
3
o
o
@
f'-
cn
jEt
.BF
or.E
-
T(^9
{l
l
I
F
o
c,
I
-'l
lol
Nl
o
EF
b
F
bb
JE
frc
z!2
r-|=
I
At
LiD
I
,rB-,8b
Ll
(l,
f
-.ozl i o - @t
W
II
I
aa-
g
=
ttl
9;
X
()
o
eaa
(9
ol
3r
c)
t-
?
=
6g
'r -3
q)
f'-
aaD
=.>
.-F
(9
()l-
.o
(J
L-
.(J
q)
b
Eg
9o
i=
-Eg
7- -nq E
ttl
oii
g)
?
._
FI
- L'-
e-
66
o9l
--
(r' U)
-aA
JA
-t
I
I
I
I
--l
E
o=t
E,
- a
?
o
.=b
-t!-<-f
s
L-
l-
od
fi b3F..l
r-.1
bL
EE
-
|','J E
F,l cEl
H
tfl
t1
- L?.1
|
qrl
1:l"l
A-9
b
-l
qr
ro
EH
OED
AE
E'F
lL6
-..SBEEN DRIVE
SPRAYNOZZLES
FORCLEAT.IING
DEBRISTROUGH
I
I
HIGH ITATER
_rlj
OPERA?INGDECK
llT-i
I
t
SCREENBASKfiS
(OR'TBAYS")
IYATERFLOW
F
DIBTY
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
WATERFLOW
l>
'cLEAr,l
tuArE-L
_to.!Y
-
I
I
t
FLOOROF SCR-EEN
STRUCTUBE
FigureA-4. DlagEmof yertlsaltravelingscreenusedat SONGSUntts2 and 3'
I
I
I
I
I
t
Nuclear
Component
Cooling
AT=19.2oF
7.0fps
Fish
Return
System
AT= 19.2"F
7"0tps
SaltWater
Pu.mps
3t,
o
oqt
O
Screens
Screen
Well
2.7 tps
o=
EEE
;rs
fE
r .Yvrer r
/
Gate
HeatTreatmentRecirculation
Schematicof saltwaterflow
for Units2 or 3 at SONGS I
I
I
I
I
o
o
J
(u
@
o
(v)
o
ci
€
SJ
o
u
-r
a
o
z
o
a
:t
1r
lt-Jl
L-
o
o
I
ll
tt ll
ll
3 l!npuoQ
o
)
(
\
)
3
o (
(I
)
3
3
v)
6
o
a
I
O
Ch
t(
E
F
J
rl(
H
o
o
o
o
io
$
N
o
3
o
o
\.
(!
o
(E
'o
b
o
b
&
cg
r{
.q
\N
\
Fl Effi
frEiIT
EiT
o
o
o
ta-
'
CN
.9
(U
o
IJJ
d
I
T
tl
lIJl
$
dutn: orlc I
$
o
E
ct)
lJ-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
I
t
APPEI{DX B
ENTRAINMENTIOSSES OF IIISH I"ARVAE
The most ertain tecbniqrrcfor reducingthe entrainme.ntlossesof fisb lawae
(ichtbyoplankton)is to resuict the operationsof SONGS. Becauseentrainment
lossesare directly related to flow rate, reducin,gthe flow rate will result in a
proponionatereductionin entrainmentlosses;this posibility is disctlssedin Sestion
62. ReschedulingSONGS'operationsto avoidperiodsof higb lanal abundances
night also substantiallyreduceeffrairment; this possibilityis examinedin Sectiou
63 and this Appendir
Densities of fish traruaeia tbe field have been used to es irnate the
entrainnxentlossesdue to SONGS. A similar approachwas employedto estimate
the adult-equivalentloss due to SONGS(TechnicalReport D). Thc calculations
preseutedbere are trot as detailed as those required for the adult-equivaleut
analysis;only the temporal panem of larval abundaicesis neededin order to
determinewhether a partiorlar period of reducedintake flow csuld result in a
substantialreductionin eutrainmentlosses.
Icbtbyoplanktondata were colle6ed over a period of eigbt yeats and in
different areas,as outlinedbelow. In the first part of this Appeud8 I comparethe
temporal abundane Pattents of difrerent sample combinations iD order to
detergine &e appropriatedensitiesto be usedin the anatpis In the secondpaft,I
estunatethe larval lossesthat coutd be preventedby schedulingthe operation of
SONGS to avoid critical periods (times of partiarlady higb ichthyoplanktou
abundances).
B- 1
81.0 Data Collection
Marine EcologicalConsultantsInc. (MEC) estimatedthe densitiesof eggs
and fish lanne near SONGSfrom 1978tbrougb 1986. Data were collectedat two
from SONGS,and tbe Conuol site was
sites: the Impact sirc was 1-3km donmcoast
185 km dowucoastfrom SONGS.Eachsirc wasdividedinto 6ve cross-sbelfblocks
(A-, &, C-, D-, and E$tocls) extenrlingto about 7 km from shore. Three deptb
strata (bottom 05 m, top 0.16m, and the water in between)were sampledwithin
eachbloclc. The two blocksof greatestinterestfor this analpis are A'and B'biocks;
A-block extendsto about 1 km offshore,and Bblock extendsfrom 1 km ro about2
lcn- A detailed descriptionof the samplinglocationsand methodsis given in tbe
Interim Technical Report 5 on Fish Larvae and Eggs (l"fRC 1988). Technical
Repon D on Adult-EquivalentLossis alsorelevant(l"Rc 1989).
82.0 Choice of samPle densities
Ichthyoplanktonwere sampledin five different nearshoreblocks at two
different siteswer a period of sevenyears;it iS not c)eata prrori whetherit would
be most appropriateto combineall the data or to analpc somesubset ID this
section,I considen (1) whetherto usedatafrom A & B blocksonly, or to average
only'
acrossall five cross-shelfblocks;(2) whetberto use data for tbe impact site
or
control site only, or combineddata; and (3) what yearsto include,iuld whe&er
Dot to distinguish between preoperational @efore July 1983) and operational
periods.
B-Z
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
82.1 A and B Block versus Cross-shelfDensities
The intake risen for Unir 2 and 3 are locatednear the boundaryof the Aand B-blocks,'sothe intake water is withdrawnfrom botb of tbeseblocks. Of
course,tbe proportion of water withdraumfrom eitber block probablydependson
prevailing oceanographicconditions. It seemsEost'rsasonable to assumethe
nrmber of fish larvae withdrawn into the plant would be best estimatedby tbe
densitiesin A & B blocls. Horrever,it night be bener to usethe cross-shelfdataif
its temporalpatternis the sameastbe pattem h A- andBbloclq sinceit constitutes
a larger dataset. Furtbermore,someB-block sampleswere taken as far as 3 km
south of tbe intakes. For thesereasons,I havecomparedtbe densitiesin A & B
blocls with the densitiesaverageacrossA throughE blocls.
When all years and all speciesare combine4 the seasonalpanern of
ichthyoplanktonabundancesin A & B blocls is quite similar to the cros-sbelf
abundaocepattem (Figue e1).
In botb casesrichtbyoplankton'were most
abundantin February,March and April. However,tbe relativeimportanceof these
three monthsdiffered. In the cross-shelfpattern, March was had a much hlgher
weremucbEore
abundancethan either Februaryor April" whereasthe abundances
eveninA&Bblocks.
Differencesin the abundane patternsbetr*'eencross-shelfand A- & B-block
sarrples can also be seen for individual species. For example,the pattern for
northeruandwy larvae(FigureB-2) is nearlyidenticalto the patternfor all species
combined;this is not surprising sinceanchoviescomprisea majority of the larvae.
For queenfi,sblanrae (Figure B-3), ttre cross-shelfand A- & B-block abundance
B-3
pa$en$ were not the so"ne. gussnfish lanraewere relatively more abundantin the
suntrler montbs in A & B biocks; the higbest abundancein A & B blocls occurred
h Argurr, whereas abundanceswere higher in May when densities are averaged
acrossall blocks.
Becarsethe abundancepattens were somewhatdifferent for A & B blocits
conpared to cross-shelfand the intake water courcsfrom A & B blocks, I have
chosento useonly the datafrom A & B blocls.
B22 Impact versusControl Densities
The analpis of adutt-equivaleut loses assumes that the average
densitiesat the Impact and Control siteswere equal. Parkerand
contemporatreogs
DeMartini (TechnicalReport D) reviewedthe data for A- and B-block densitiesat
the two sitesduringthe preoperationalperiod;the operationalperiod dataweretrot
reviewed becausethe ichtbyoplanktondensitiesmay have been influenced by
SONGS. No consistentdifferenceswere found betwecuthe Impaa and Control
sites In this section,I comparethe Impactand Controlsitesover all years5ampled.
The temporal patteros of larval densitiesfor all years combined at the
Control and Impactsitesare presentedin FiguresB-1,B'2 and&3; I bavecbosento
nse only data from A & B blocks,so the comparisonfocuseson thesedata For
total species and northeru anchovy tbere were sligbt differences in absolute
densities,but the seasonalPattemswere vety similar at the Congol and Impact
sites. For queenfisblanrae,there wiui a bimodal abundancePattenrat the lmpact
site that wasnot Presentat the Control site.
B-4
I
I
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
l
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
l
T
I
I
Differencesbetweenthe Control andIryast sircscanalsobe seenin Figues
8.4 through+10. Thesefigurespresentdensitiesat eachof the nro sampli4gsites
over all of the yearssampledfor the sevenspecieswi& densitiesthat exceeded20
larvae/aO0nF. In atl cases,sone differenes between the nro sites can be
distinguishe{ and thesediffercncesare fregueatlysrbstantial MaDyqpecieswere
not consistentlymore abrundantat one site or the other. For example,northeru
anchwy (Figure B,-.4)were more abundantat the rrrrF36 sitc in 1980and at the
Control site in 1986. On the otber has{ somespecicqsucbasjaclsmelt (FigureB10),weregenerallymore abundantat the rrnFactsitc,whereasother species,suchiis
aro\il goby and shadowgoby (Figrres B.7 asd F8), were more abundantat the
Control site. Note that higherdensitiesat the Control sirc couldbe dueto SONGS'
impacqand for tbesetwo speciesthe differcnccsbetweenrt'rPaAand Controlwere
mostnotableafter SONGSbegauoperations.
From thesedatq it is clearthat thercwereno onsistent differencesbetrveen
the Control and Impact sites: the relative importanceof a site dependedon tbe
speciesand year in guestion- Theserariations ntay or uray Dot be random; it is
possiblethat one site was consistentlybener for a paniarlar species.Nonetheless,
the lack of a consistentdifferene betweenthe sites suggeststhat combini4gthe
data from tbe nro siteswoutdprovidethe best estimateof generalichthyoplankton
abundance.
B23 Interannud Variation in Densities
To evaluate tbe imponance of interannual variation in lan'al fish densities'
the abgndancepatterDsfor tbe ning ye315betweeu 1978and 1986are presentedin
B-5
FiguresB'11 tbrougbB-15. Note that relatively
few monthswere
sampledin sorDe
yeats'no sanplesweretakeain 198aand
SONGSbeganoperationsin July 19g3.
There dearly were nrbstantial differences
between years. The total
ichtbyoplanktouachievedhigh densitiesin 1980
and 19g6,apparentlywith much
lorrer densitiesin interveningyears(Figure B-11);
hoverrer,the period of highest
abnadancewhenall yearsare combine4March and
April, wasnot sampledin most
yea'rs'Northenr anchovies(Figure btz),which
constifirtethe largest.componeutof
the ichthyoplankton'and white croaker (Figrre B-13)
followed the samepatter*
when northern anchovyis excluded,the abundance
of all other qpeciesis somewhat
lover in February and somewhathigber io A,rg,rrq
but otherwisethe pattern is
similar (Figure &14). The overall abundancepattem
for queenfishwasproduced
nlmssl entirely by the paftem in 19g0,
wheu queenfishappearedto be most
abundant(Figure B-15). Note that arrow goby and
shadowgoby (FiguresB-7 and
B{) appearedto haveincreasedbetrreenrgTgasd19g6.
As with the comparisonbenpeenImpact and control sites,tbere
were no
consistentdifferelces amongyears.In addition,sanplingwas
not intenseenoughin
eac;hyear to choosca nrbset of years. It secmstbat combining years
all
sampled
would prwide the bcst-estimateof senerali&thyoplanlctonabundance.
Howwer, it
is importaut to reqli''e ihat somemontbstvereonly sampledin one
or a fenryears,so
the data are not basedoE a very largesamplesize. (On tbe other
han4 it is worth
notitg that this is perhapsthe best ichthyoplanktondatasetever collected
for a
segnentof SouthernCaliforniacoastline.)
B-6
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
R3.0 Calculation of potcntial savings
This sectionconsidenhorr the number of fish lailae that are entrainedby
I
SONGScould be reducedby restrictingthe operationof SONGSduriqgperiodsof
t
5x10 Lzrvze/yar: see Technical Report D arrd Interim TechnicalReport 5) are
higb ichtbyoplanktonabundanes Current estimarcsof lossesof fisb larvac (about
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
basedon tbe operatiqghistoryof SONGS,that is, the pastflow rates. The flow rarcs
I
by the numberthat would not be entraineduaderthe curcnt operatingschedule.
I
I
I
I
t
used iD calculationsof ichthyoplanktonlossesinchded all periods of reduced
operations,includingscheduledoutages.
In this section,I evaluatehow scheduliqgoutagesdruing the period of
maximumichthyoplanktonabundancecould reduce overall larval losses. Fint, I
considerthe past operatinghistory of SONGSin order to prwide a basisagainst
which proposedchangescan be compared. Nexq I considerhov the timing of
outagescouldaffecttbe numberof fish larva€entrained.atSONGS.I cal$late how
manylarvaewould be sparedby stoppingthe flor of water througbSONGSduring
a partiorlar period of time. Of course,Iarvaaare not entrained during outages
under the crrrrentoperatingschedule;we are interestedin the differenceiD larval
entrainmentbtween the qrrrent scheduleand an alrcraatiw schedule.Therefore,
the numberof larvaenot entrainedundera proposedoperatiqgscheduleis adjusted
One final concertris alsodiscussed.Whin SONGSdoesnot operate,Power
production mrst be increasedat otber SouthernCaliforaia Edison facilitiEs. I
considerwhether an alternative operatingschedulewould rezult i11highgl lar%l
entrainmentat theseotherfacilities.
B-7
I
I
I
83.1 Operatinghistoryof SONGS
Larval losseswill be reducedany time SONGSoPeratesat a lower than
normalflow rate. OperatingSONGSat a sustahedreducedflow rate is considered
in Sestion62. This Appendix considersthe resourcesavinp that can be achieved
so I
by schednlingSONGS'operationsto avoid periodsof hig! tarvd abundances,
focus on periods when there is uo flbw througb SONGS,and hence no loss of
ichtbyoplanktonFigure&16 showsthe total uumberof dap Units 2 atd3 did not oPerate
betweeuthe period January1, 1984and July 31, 1988(L674days). During this
period'Units2and3didnotproducePou,eranaverageof3}voofthedaln,or
about 116 dzys/year. Some of these periods of no Pouterwere causedby
unscheduledoutages(seeTable 63). Periodsof no flow occur during scbeduled
outagesat fairly regular intemalsof about 14 months(Figrue B-17). On average,
Units 2 and 3 had no flow l25Vo of the dap, or about 46 days/year' Most
scheduledrefueling periodslastedfor about nro months(Figure B'tZ,Table 6-3)'
but of coursethe annual averagewas lessthan two monthsbecausethe scheduled
outagesdid not occurat l2-month inrcnrals.
In the fufirre, Units Z a\d 3 may oPenrteat a somewhatdifferent rate'
Funge fuel cyclesare scheduledto be 5z5 EffectiveFull PowcrDap (EFPDs)long
that
or about 18 months UnschcduledoutagesEight also be les frequent now
periods are
SONGS has been tbrougb several fuel cycles. Futgre refueling
of these
scheduledto be 70 dalr long @. PiLner,pasonal commwdcation).In sPite
tlpe
possiblefutgre changes,the datapresentedin this sectionare indicativeof the
B-8
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
t
l
I
of operating schedule expectedand are tberefore used as the baseline agairst which
I
a proposed uew sc.hedulecan be compared
t
B33 Larvaeentrainedby SONGS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
T
In this sectio&I ceilculatethe numberof fish lanae that would be entraiDed
if SONGS were to oPerate at t0f,1Vofl6np during the period of highgsl
ichthyoplanktonabrmdance.I havetargeted 13 speciesqftfo high estimatedadult
equivalent losses(see Table B.1; unidentified keBfisb which has an estimated
adult-equivaleDtloss of.4.97Vo,is tbe only specieswitb >7VoAEL that was not
analped), as well as total ichtbyoplankton,northern anchory, and total minus
anchovy. Severaldifferent periods of time are coDsidered,rangingfrom two to
three montbslong.
Fish larvac were most abundantduri4g FebruarytbroughApril (Table B2;
For all speciescombine4 37Voof the annual abundance
ocg15redin Marcb,24VoinApril andt77oin February(fable B-S);thrs, 557oof tbe
ichtbyoplanktonoccgrredin 2 moathsandT2Voof the ichthyoplanktonoccurredin 3
Fignres 6;3 and e1).
months. This pattera is stronglyinfluencedby northeruanchovybecauseit is by far
the mostabundantspecies.However,the generalPatternexistswheuancboviesare
excluded (Figure 63), and 53Vo of.the total ichthyoplanktouEinus ancbovies
occgrredin March and April (Table B3). The 'nat'' conuibution of ancboviesto
tbe abrrndancepanerg is to increasethe importane of Februa41when anchovies
are exclude4only |Vo of.tbeichttryoplanktonocqured in Februaqy.
B-9
I
I
Datz on the combined ichtbryoplankton tzxz' demonstrate that a
disproportionatenumberof larrraeoccurduringa few qrcnths'so that restrictingtbe
openrtionof SONGSduring thosemonthscouldresult in a substantialreductioni8
losscs. Of course,individual taxa have different abgndanccPattens' Table F3
pr€seat the larval abundanceof lj} qpecieswith estimatedadult equivalentlosses
(AEIs) s:rcesding1% (Iechnical Report D). Mary of the specieswith high AEIs
were abundatt in March and April Nine species(queenfisb'gant kelpfuh' white
goby and
croaker,black croaker,cheekspotgoby,alrort gory, jac}smelt, shadow
diamondtqrbot) had more tbas tAVoof their larvaein Marcll w-hileseve! species
jaclsmelt
(queenfisb"gant kelpfisb,white croaker,California gnrnioU agow goby,
three
aud California clingfish)had more than t\Vo of their larvae in ApriL Only
l$Vo of'
species(gant kelpfish, sbador goby and diamondnrrbot) had more tbat
their lawae in February.
the
The estinated number.of larnaethat would be entrained(an4 hence'
in Table B-4
lossesthat would be prwented if SONGSdidn't operate)are PreseBted
nnd Marcll April and
for three periods: March asd Aprit' FebnrarythroughApnt'
and the
August Based o! the general Patten of ichtbyoplanktonabuadance
be the trro
abundancesof the tf, specieswith higb AEI'5, l'Iarch and APril would
33 billion
best montbs to eliminatc &e flonr of water throrgh SONGS' Nearly
full flow; more
larvacwould be entrainedin March andApril if SONGSoPeratesat
more than 1
than 2 billion of theselarrraewouldbe nortbernane.hoviesIa addition'
dtring March
billion larvac of the 13 specieswith AELS >l%owould be entrained
are commos' and only
and April Howwer, few of tbe specieswith high AEIJ
entrainedduring
queenfishand white croakerwould havemore than 100,000larrrae
March and APril.
B-10
I
t
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
T
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
l
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
t
Restricting tbe operation of SONGS during February would also
disproportiouatelyredue the total los of ichthyoplankton(Table B4), sinceabout
1 million larvaeare eutrainedin February,but the reductionwould consistprinarily
les tbzn0J%o.Giant
of anchovies,whichhaveanestimatedadulteErinalentlossof
kelpfis\ with an estimated adult eguivalent los of 6.88V0,were much more
-\an
abundantin February
otbernonths (TableB.2). Hon'ever,relativelyfew giant
kelpfishlaryaeare entrained(6.98x1trper year; of tbe 13 target sPecieqoaly black
croaker had fewer tarvae entrained), &d losses to this species could be
compensated
iD-kindby buitdiagan anificial reef with kelp. As in March andApril,
white croaker is the AEL specieswith by far the greatest number of laryae
entrained.
A numberof ichthyoplanktonspecieswereErostabundantin summer(Table
B-3), as reflecredin tbe small peak in abrurdancein August (Figure 63). Species
in sumner includequeenfis\ California
with higfi AEts sd high lar%l abundances
grunioa black croaker, Catiforuia corbina reef finspot and Califoraia dingfish.
in Marell six
comparedto the nine specieswith high trf,I5 and > tlvo abI,Jtrldance
specieshad > 107oabundancein Augrrst Fur&ermore,four of thesespecies(black
croaker,Califoruia corbina reef finspot and Catiforaiaclingfish)were mucb Elore
abundantin Augrst tban in lvlarch.
Substantiallossesin someof the Eost-impactedspeciesould be avoidedby
schedulingthe plant for no flow in August as well as in March and April. The
numberof queenfishlarrae eutrainedin Augustis equatto tbe nrmber entrainedin
March and Aprii combined(Table Ba). Atthoug! black croaker and Califonia
B-11
corbina were not commoD,they were very abundantin AllgUsEwith 15 and 6
millisa larrraeentrainedin that Eoutb, resPectively(TableB4)'
Finally, note that very few specieswere abgndantin Septemberthrough
Jannary(fable B3); only tlVo of the ichtbyoplanktonocctrred during this forumonth period. Coincidentally,tbis is the period when SONGSEost frequentlyhad
no-flow conditioos(Figure 8-16). In additiorUSONGShas had relatively few noflow daysin March and April, when the ichthyoplanktonwere most abundant'or
even in July and A,tg,ttq when some of the specieswith high AEIs were most
couunon The past operatinghistory of SONGShas by chancebeen alnost the
losses'
oppositeof the optimalschedulefor reducingichthyoplankton
B33 Larrae sparedunder presentschedule
the numberof larvae
The numberof dals offline/yezt wasgsedto estfutrate
that are sparedunder tbe presentoperatingschedule' (Under actual condidons'
for
SONGSalsosometimesoPeratesat lessthan full flow, but this hasbeenignored
the same
the sake6g$rnplicit] in this aullEts.) Note that soNGS is uot ofline at
Over a long
time eachyear @gUre Bl.7), but rather can be of,ine in alry month'
of no-flow
period of time, eachmonthwould be expectedto havcthe samenumber
the pastfew
days. (FigUre&16 demotstratesft4 this hasnot beenthe caseover
larr"acthat are
years,but wennrally it shouldbe.) Tberefore,tbe otal numberof
averageentrainment
sparedunder tbe presentscheduleis estimatedby rsing the
rate over all montbs,asfollorvs:
B-t2
I
I
I
I
I
T
T
t
I
I
I
t
t
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
l
t
I
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
T
I
t
Numberof
Irnae Spared
Per Yirar
Mean
Density
ofLarvac
No. Moutbs
With No FIow
Per Year
Florv
Volume
Pcr Montb
For example:
Total No. of
I-arvaeSpared =
Per Yi:ar
l'7$/d
x
2'76xlF nr/no
x
15 mo
= 737xlfflanrac
A similarprocedurewasrsed to cal$late tbe numberof lanae of individualspecies
that are sparedunderthe presentschedule.
Uuder the preseutoperatingschedule,737 million larvaeare sparedduing
tbe 15 montbsof tbe year when SONGShas no flow (Table B5). Most of these
Iarvae(62Vo)are nortbern anchovie$but 245miilios of tbe larvaebelongto tbe 13
speciesYift high AELS.
83.4 Potentid reductionin entrainnent of lish lrrvae
To estimateroughlytbe numberof larvacthat canbe savedby rescheduling
tbe operation of SONGS,tbe number of larvae that would be sparedusing tbe
present schedule(Table R5) has beeu srbracted from the number entrained
during the critical months (Table R4). The ichthyoplanktonlossesthat migbt be
preventedby rescheduliqgSONGSover three different periods are presentedin
Table 85. For example,if the flow of coolingwatcr throughSONGSwasstopped
during March and April roug$y 25 billion fua
lart'aewould be killed tban under
the presentoperatingscbedule.This would cut tbe culreDtestimatedloses iD half.
B-13
the
The savingpcould be iacreasedto 68Vo of.tbe clrrent lossesby also eliminating
cooling s],sten flou, in FebruarY.
'When
only the lil specieswith high AELs are coDsidere4827million fewer
larvac would be killed by not operatingSONGSin March and April; this savingp
itr
could be iacreasedto trlore than 1 billion larvae by also uot operatingSONGS
Augusr The additionalbenefrtof not operatingSONGSin Augustis not obvious
when the numbersof all higb-AEL speciesare combinedbecarsewhite 6oaker'
in Augrsl a;'eby far the mostabundantspecies.However,
which are not
The
the importanceof August is clear when the averagereducdonis cal$lated'
March &
mean reduction in entrainmentfor the 13 high'AEL speciesis lSVoin
March& April, and3|Voin March,APril andAugust'
Apnt, }SVoinFebruary,
The savingpthat could be obtained by reschedulingSONGS' operations
the
would vary from speciesto qpecies.With SONGSsffiins in March and April'
ftom 875
lossof white soaker, wbichhasone of the highestAEIJ, couldbe reduced
flow during
million lan^e to 210 miltion lanrac, a reductioir of'76Vo' Having no
jaclsmelt in half'
March andApril would cgt the lossesof northernanchoviesand
ftom
on tbe other han4 not all qPecieswould necessarilybenefit
the best months
reschedulingSONGS. Althougb Marcb and April maybe overall
somewhathigber
for schedulingsoNGS to be ofline, somesPecicsmay experience
millisa more California
lossesas a resrlL Of tbe 13 specieswith higb AEls, !'l
if SONGSis offline
corbinaand 1.06milliou more reef finspotwould be entrained
be an increaseof about
ia March and April (TabteB5); for both speciet this would
Augustin the time period
t4Vo isthe number of larv.aekilted. Hovever, including
B-14
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
t
T
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
t
I
SONGSis scheduledto be ofEinewould resultin a substantialreductionin lossesto
thesenro species.In facq Doneof tbe 13 tr;gl-aEl specieswould experienceless
than a !2Vo rcdustionin lossesif SONGSis scheduledto have no flow in Marcb'
April & AugusL and jackmelt, Catiforuia corbina white croaker, queenfishand
northern anchoywould elgerienceaSETSVoreductionin losses.
The savings calculated in this section were based on SONGS' recetrt
operatinghistory,Le.,46 dap per yearwitb uo florv througbthe planr The savings
would be lower if SONGSoperatesin the funre witb fewer dap witb no flow. Tbe
savingswould be only balf as greatif only one unit was offline eacbyear, aswould
be the caseif SONGSoperatedon a 24-monthfuel cycle.
83.5 l"arvaeentrainedst other poxer stations
If reschedulingSONGSmeansthat more larvaewitl be impingedat otber
po$'er stations,the savingsattributed to the &e reschedulingmust by adjustedby
the increasedlosseselsewhere. In order to evaluatsthis possibility,we need to
know the seasonalpatten of entrainmentat the stationsthat would be used.to
generatepoiverwhenSONGSis offliae.
One approachto making this adjrstment would be to comParethe daily
eutrainmentrate at SONGSby month witb the daily entrainmentrate at otber
stationsby montb. The ouparison would be basedon tbe absolutenumber of
larvae entrained or, better still, tbe nrmber of lanae entraiDedPer megawattof
electricity gvfW"; generated,since.thatis what will determinehow much water is
pumpedthroughtbe other plants. (Note that uuclearPor*'erplantsusemore water
B-U
per lvf\ile than fossil fuel plants.) The analpis for eac'hplant would parallel the
atat)'sisperforoed for SONGS,with the larval entrainmeutunder the mitigation
schednlecompared to the entrainment nnder the present operating schedule'
Unfornrnarcly,this approachis complicarcdby the fact that we dos't know which
stationis likely to be gsedasan alrcmativeto SONGS(S(E choosesthe alternative
basedon a co6plex setof fastorq includingcostof fucl andemissions)andwe don't
havetheir operatinghistories
A simpler approacbto'this problem would be to ask whether increased
operationsat other SCE geueratingstatio1sin February,Marclf April or August
would rezult in disproportionatelosses I have rsed SCE data to exanine the
at otber SCEstations. SCEdoes
seasonalentrainmentpattens of ichtbryoplankton
not colleetichthyoptanktonabundancedatanear all of its of&horeintakes. Instead,
of
andbiologicalcharacteristics
Schlotterbecka al. (lg7g') categorized&e pbJrsical
the severalintake typesin the SCE qnten Data from OrmondBeachGenerating
were
Station(OBGS), identifredas rePresentativeof offthore velocitycap intakes'
at El Segrrndoand Huntingon Beach Generating
used to estimate
Stations.Datafronllal'ocsGcacratingStation(actuallyrrrnbryl.osAngelesWater
used to
and Pover), representativeof canal/embay6eutharbor intakeq were
Stations'
estimateentrainmeatat Mandalry,Long Beachand Alamitos Geuerating
of King
Datawere alsocollcctedatboth tbe ofthore (Units1 &8,near the mouth
Beach
Harbor) and harbor (UniS 1{, within King Ha$or) intakesat the Redondo
over about
GeneratingStation(RBGS). In all cases,ichtbyoplanktonweresaslpled
it is possible
oue year, so it is uot possibleto consideryear-to-yearvariationt and
of the long-termaverage'
wasnot rePresentative
that the year sampled(1979-1980)
B-16
I
I
t
I
I
l
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
l
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
There were two distinct temporalpattems of entrainmentfor thesestations
(Fignre B-18). Ormond Beach and Redondo Bearh Unis 7 & 8, which have
offshoreintakes, had temporal pattems that were fairly similar to SONGS: tbe
greatestentrainmentocsrred in lvlarch. At OBGS,tfushigh entrainmeBtin Marcb
was due to botb northern ancbovies(20.7Voof the total annual entrainment)and
white croaker (la.6Vo); l4Vo of.the larrracwere eutrainedio Apttf, and no other
month ontribute d >t}Vo.'The pattem was someuftatdifferent at RBGS Unia 7
and 8, which enuained a great mary white croakerlarnae in Jaauaryas well as
March;no othermonthcontributed>l0Vo.
A different patteru occured at HGS and RBGS Units 1-6, where highest
gsueinment occured during tbe summer mouths. At HGS, entrainment was
dominated by Hypsoblemhs and gobies, and May, June and August each
contributed >107o of the total annual entrainmenl RBGS 1{ entrained many
cbee}spotgobiesand reef finTrots,eqpeciallyin Juneand September,althougbJuly
alsocontributed>L$Voof the total annualentrainmeur
The entrainmentat HGS and RBGS 1{ wasrelativelylow druing February
througbApnl, so that increasingpo\r'erproductionat theseplants (andprenmably
Mandalay,Long Beachand Alarnitos GeneratingStations)if SONGSis scheduled
doum during this time would not result in highgl total entrainmenr Althougb
entrainmentys5highestin the sunmer at HGS andRBGS 1'6, it wasonly tlVo anid
9Vo,respectively,dgring fugnsq so that iucreasingporiler production duri4g this
time would not result ia high additional losses.The entrainmentat RBGS 7 & I
and OBGS was more 5imils 1s SONGS,altbougb white croaker was more
important at RBGS than at SONGS. IncreasiagPuBPingat RBGS 7 & 8 during
B-17
March and OBGS (and presumablyHuntingtoaBeachand El SegundoGenerating
Statioas)duringMarch and April would renrlt in somewhathigbertotal larvd losses
at those stations,so if thesestationsoperiateat a higber level becarseSONGSis
ofEine dudng March and April, thrc savingscalculatedabovewould need to be
adjusteddoqrnuardsomewhal
I have not attempted a quantifredadjustmeutbecarseSCEs entrainment
data were collectedduring only one year,while the MRCs data from the Impact
and Control sitesclearlyshowlargeinterannud differesces.
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
t
t
I
l
B-18
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l
I
I
l
I
APPEI{DIX B
LIIERATURE CITED
InterseaResearchCorporation(trtQ). 1981. Halaes GeneratiqgStation sssling
water intake snrdy(316(b) demonstrationprogram). Preparedfor the Los
Angeles Department of Water and Porer, Los Angeles, Califsrnia
November1981.
Marine Review Committee. 1988. Interim TechnicalRepon 5. Fisb krvae and
Eggs. Report submittedto the california coastal commission.
Marine Review Committee. 1989. TechnicalReport D. Adult'equivalentloss.
Repon to tbe CaliforniaCoastalCommission
SchlotterbechRE, I.B. krso4 P. DorA RC. Miracle, R.G. Kanter, R-R- lVare,
D.B. Cadien and D.W. Connally. t979. Phpical and' biological
categorizationprocessfor selectionof SouthernCaliforaiaEdisonCompany
represenative 316(b) study sites. SoutberuCaliforuia Edison Company
ResearchandDeveloPmentSeries:79-RD-68.46 pp'
SoutbernCalifornia Edison Compauy(SCE). 1982. Alamitos GeneratingStation
316(b) demonstration SouthernCaliforniaEdisonCompany,Resealcband
DevelopmentSeries82-RD-96:41Pp.with appendices'
I
I
1
I
B-19
SoutberuCaliforniraEdisonCompany(SCE). 1983a RedoudoBeachGenerating
.
Station 316(b) demonstration Soutliera California Edison Company'
Researchand DevelopmentSeries82-RD-98:46 pp. with appendices.
SoutheraCalifornia Edison Compary (SCE). 1983b. Ormond BeachGenerating
Station 316(b) demonstration Southeru California Edison Company'
Series82-RD-100:31pp.with appeudices.
ResearchandDevelopmetrt
B-20
I
I
I
I
T
I
t
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
I
I
t
I
Table B-1
Comnon and scientilic namesof lish species.
Northen anchory and il] spccicswitb estimatcd adult cgutvaleut losses >1% wre
targetcd" Adult cquivalent lossesfjom Tcchnical R4on D. AEL = Adult equivaleot
loss.
SPEcES/GRouP
SCIENIINC}.IAME
Vo AFjL
12-70
Quecnfsh
Sedpltttsplius
Giant lclpfish
Hetemsticlutsmsmsus
6.88
r$fhite croaker
Genyonemtslineaas
750
Califoruia gruniou
I.curcskes teruis
4591
Blacl croaker
Qteiloaernasoatnum
3.891
C-aliforaiacorbina
Menticbrlus undulatus
355r
Cheekspotgoby
Ifuntts glberti
3.04
Reef frnspot
Patulitttts lntegiprwtils
L%
Arrow goby
Clevvludia ios
L&
Jaclsnelt
Akeinopsis calilalziouls
2.45r
Shadowgoby
Quieuls)'cstfu
Lt4
Di"-ond turbot
Hypsopsaoguailu
2(b
California alingfiqh
Gobiescrhqsfut
1.43
Northenr aachovy
Engrulis morb
<0.10
I
Loss througb juvcnilc stagpincstinable (se.cTcchaical Report D)
B-27
l
I
I
TableB-2
Monthly densitiesof Iish larvae near SONGS.
t
(the most abundant
Data are deuidcs (numbcr of larvae/4{Xl u1 for total spccics,nortbern enchorry
losscs > 17o'
equivalcnt
spccies), total spccics miaus anchory, and |jt spccics si1tr 6rin"c4{ edult
Ihasldes bsscd oE A. and $.bleks, lgpact and Cong.olndl fcars combined.
sPEcrEs/
GRoup
DENsrrY6 /mM3)
TOIAT,
JA}I
FEB T{AR
APR TVIAY JUN.
JUL
AUG
SEP
OC'l
Total
8v2
115:.,&265L?frn51321819041824555129400
Northera Anchovy
5Z{2
89
126L t762 trjg
Total -inus anchovy
32fi
57
24
Queenfsh
789
o
7
vz
Giant kelpfish
10.1
0
33
White croaker
t4,/,9
1
tu
California grunion
8.4
000358
Black croaker
5.8
000.800.6
Califoraia corbina
1:}O
000005020.69250'1
Cbeekspotgoby
a
1310810?pL4
Reef finspot
a.0
000.1000J6J45050500
arow goby
t9
Jacksmelt
tx
16.1 103 t4J
Shadowgoby
36.9
15
5.0
5:7
Diamond turbot
185
o
32
Califoraia clinsfish
16.9
0
Total AEL specics
2W
39
DEC
t2'
t4
29
329
L26
4L
101
7t
83
224 656
8
0'2
0'04
0.6
05
0.4
0'7
0'4
0
0'6
8
2
3
1
2
49
74
43
96
N
50
2U
168 145 3n.
1y
u
90
L2
1.1
ul
t76
578
65
88t1 S4
NOV
1059.1
000
L60.90'1
150.6Lt03000
152'12vy
252512t47t035351
A3
L0
o-vz
0
0'03 0'4
0'4
55
18
4.L
1-1
3i
39
32
1'6
t'7
3'7
55
Ul
0t
02
0
02
L'7
05
4s
0'1
0
0.6
4.4
1.4
33
3-1
22
1'6 '02
0
0
lgl
7go nr
a5
rx
1n
269 104
95
62
82
B -22
a
t
I
I
00
14
I
I
T
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Table B-3
Temporal patteras of ichthyoplanliConsbundancenear SONGS.
Data are pr:sentcd for total species,northera anchovy (tbe most sbundlDt species)' total
ad lii ip."io with estimatcd adult cquivalent losscs >1%. Densities
spcciesmious ancbovSr,
based on A. and B-blocls,Impact gld Control, all lcars combined. Months wi& >10% of
the roul abundanccarc shorm in boklface typa
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
SPECES/
GRoUP
JAI.J FEB
Total
!1
NortherD Anchovy
LJ
Total minrs anchovy
L.7
T4AR APR
PERCENTOF T TAL ABIJNDAI.ICE
\{AY JTN JI,JL AUG SEP OCT NOV
DEC
6.0
L6
22
49
Z9
0.6
15
43
4.4
0.9
08
1"8
23
03
05
62
273 2SS 8.7
5.1
45
9.9
3"9
:"3
3'1
22
3r.q US
.11.4
23.9 33.4 23t
6.9
Queenfisb
0
0.9 11.? 1?.0 10.6 11-q 10.6 2E.4 83
Giant kelpfsh
0
32.1 12.1 r0.9 12.t
White croaker
05
99
California gruaion
0
0
1.1 19t
Black croakcr
0
0
g!3
Califoraia corbina
0
0
0
Cheekspotgoby
5.4
5.7
5.0
3.9
72
3"9
0
6'4
3sJ 3g9 45
0.6
02
02
0.1
0.1
3'4
0'9
35t
303
8-9
32
05
0'04
0
0'006
0
o
0
1-1
0
0
4.4 E2
0
1"1 0"03 0'004
0.4
0.06 103 25.0 r03
0
3.8
t2
4.1 13,9 53
0
0
Reeffinspot
0
Arrow goby
L8
s.4 376-IL0J56
Jacksmelt
ru
73
Shadowgoby
4.0
135 15.4 48
55
35.9 52
5.0 695192
6.4
92
5.1 143 15'6
505353
4.t
42
58
0
0
7s r0'? 3s
5"1 Ze
s'4 Ls
402 11.r r7S 0J 0.(p' 0
0.02 03
03
4'0
8.7 . 4'4
43
9'9
U'5
05
ru
0
l?J
Califorsia clingfsb
0
0
35
Total AEL species
L.4
6.6
27.t 21J
zu
10.0 10J
1.1 0.09 13
93
L6
8.4 19.7 13.6 13:
92
L"4
o
0
3.7
1'0
33
22
29.9 7-L 4.4
Diamond turbot
Lg
83
B-23
4.8
43
95
I
I
Table 84
AnticiPated ichthyoplanldonentrainment at SONGS'
Data are prcsentad for total specics,norlhen anchory (the most gSusdnnt species),
and tlt spccicswith estimated adult equivalcnt losses
toAl spccics minus ancho?y,
-c"tt"i""a
is cstimaEd by nultiplying tchthyoplanliCon
>l?a Number of larrrc
(9.07x106
;3lUy for Units 2 and 3 combined)
at
fiov
ratc
SONGS
tbe
dcnsity tlmcs
period
considercd.
bcing
in
thc
of
days
numbcr
dmcs thc
SPECTES/
GRoup
Nt uBERENTRA$'IED( x 101
ldARcxI,
FEBRUaRY,
lv{ARcH&
APRIL&
&
IT,|ANAN
APRIL
AUGUST
APRIL
Total
328
42.
357
Northcru aachovy
LL
L9
1 1'7
Total miaus aachovy
1.19
ul3
L.42
Quecnfsh
0.156
0.1603
0316
Giant kelpFrsh
0.0017
0.0038
0.002
Whitc croaker
0.?9
0.881
0.792
Califoraia grunioa
0.0042
0.m42
0.0049
Black croakcr
0.0005
0.0005
0.ffi2
Califoraia corbina
0
0
0.m6
Chcckspot goby
0.9276
0.93/.2
0.(886
Rcef finspot
0.fixxx
0.00004
0.00304
Arrow goby
0.9249
0.wn
0.a72
Jacksnelt
0.0t1
0.061
0.054
Sbadowgoby
0.00y2
0.m84
0.00.19
Dianond nubot
0.0049
0.0069
0.m51
Califoraia "Iingf*h
0.0034
0.0034
0.005
Total AEL spccies
Lgru
L1916
L26n
Bl4
t
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
Table B-5
possible reduction in entrainment of tish larvae from rescheduling'
sPecies),total spccies
Data aF prcscntcd for total spccies, norlbern anchorry (thc most abuudaBt
pr=vented $as'
ninus anchorry,and 13 spccics wifb cstimatcd adult eguivaleut losscs >l7a Loss
(sce
Tablc 82) minus
calculatGdas tte nuubcr of larne that would be entmined in tbe months notcd
the numbcr that would uot be cntrained under tbe PrGscIt oPcrsting oclcdule"
:
AI{NTJAL I.OSSINEVEI'TTEDBY ELIMINANNG FI.oW DURING
sPECrEs/
GROUP
No. SPARED
PERYEAR
ATPRESENT
T{ARCTI&
APRIL
F:EBRUARY,
lv{ARcxt &
APRIL
lvlARo{,
APRIL&
AUGUST
x 10e
x1@
%
x10e
Vo
X10e
Vo
Total
0.7368
25432
49
3.4832
68
2.8322
55
Northera anchovy
0.4556
t.6444
52
2.4444
n
t.1474
x
Total minus anchovy
02812
0.9088
4
1.0488
53
1.1388
58
Queenfish
0.0681
0.08i/9
18
o.wzT
19
02419
52
Giant kelpfish
0.0m9
0.0008
13
0.m29
48
o.mu
18
White croaker
0.150
0.6650
76
0.7560
86
0.6670
76
Califoruia gruaion
0.005
0.0017
10
0.0017
10
0.m24
13
Black croaker
0.0005
43
0"0011
0n00m2 0.06
-t4
4J0U
0.0015
Califoraia corbina
0.000002 0.06
-0.m11 -14
0"0049
63
Cheekspotgoby
0.o206
L2
0.00u
9
0"0136
-0.00106 -14
0.0180
Reef fraspot
5
0.0070
-0.00106 -14
0.0019
24
Ariow goby
0.0077
0.@t2
31
0.0195
x
Jacksnelt
0.0493
60
0.0423
52
0.011?
an'.:n
0.s23
32
52
Shadowgoby
0.0032
0.0@0
9
0"0052
B
0.004?
21
Diasond trubot
0.m$
48
0.0035
32
0.0015
30
$
0.m$
Cdiforaia dingF<h
o.q[B
o.mp
0.mD
$
0.0035
34
Totd AEL spccics
02455
0&6%2
48
a.%742
55
1318242 59
B-25
t
o
c
o
8
o
=
2
8
U'
?
-:oo
EF;
est
lis
ri
?
?,
al
i;e
ggEgEBO
Ef;ESggggC'
7'G'G'
ar.
i$p
HoE
5
:
F
;I
8
EE
E-g o
lo9
E"l
-s"9
E.- 6
99c't
E.E
taF
_7ia
EE9
::a
EgEgSgEgo
P3E
EE9
?2rlrGrGr-
e
E
E
d
2
8
{
a
I
.t-
- b
o
gE;
?
rBs.*
t
igEEEgso
Est
g,
.'
€
-
gEEEEESO
""8*t
FeIF
e
8
-loo
E -a
;s$
Iis
3;e
i$p
EgEgEgO
TtGaGa??
= .E
I
E
EE
E
>.tl
gl
3o9
ac,
9€-
F<g
g0E
E*E
Ese
=.
;;
EgE
EgEgEg
7rfiGa--
e c,9
6P-
AEg
E;:
d
-
5rS
G?i-
8
EtE
a
{
E
E
$8s.*
l D9 E g
ilgF
tr
gEgEgc
kumr/r$llsc
gEgEgo
Ga.ra-
RC{?'
lamoor/!}o^lsl6 ravtr
net
B-n
e
8
3E*
H
EE
E AF
=o
FE
E
o('(,'
nEe
aE "
8
t8t80
ctGa?
RStStRo
=-
rE; X
gBE
E
E
2(/,15
6.9
13E;
EgE
93e
u<
o
reE
EAo
.o
.Es
EEF
gSttc
81F*
.||a
d
d
=-*E3
=
=J +
o
E
A
E
E
=
E
E
.'
.'
:
:
'b
<
8
8888c
Gaaa-
tr
Ee!93c
'
-
EEg€
a
a
-Y
s3gF
ggEs
-?of,
E(,'.g=
=|,)-tt
F,3sf
ANCHO\^T
NORTHERN
IMPACT
ro
tr
5 2500
o
t
d:20oo
3
1s00
E
n
z
H 1000
z
LJ
=
5OO
1979
1980
1981
1982
19E3
1984
CONTROL
3000
ro
c
2soo
5
o
-f
d: 2000
3
E 1500
n
z
H 1oo0
z.
a
LJ 5OO
197919E01981198219E319E4198519E6
controlsltes lrom 1979to
FigureB-4 Densttiesot northem anchoqylawae at lmpact and
1986.
*29
QUEENFISH
IMPACT
ro
E
o
o
+
\
o
z
6
zUJ
z
lrl
1979198019E1198219831984198519E6
CONTROL
ro
E
o
o
+
\
o
300
z.
E
a
200
z
u,J
o
z 100
L.t
=
1979
1960
19E1
19E2
19E3
19E4
19E5
1986
Flgure B-5 Densitiesot queenfishlaruaeat lmpact and Controlsites
B-30
from 1979to 1986'
WHITECROAKER
100
80
l2
l-
60
lu)
40
IE
lz
|
|J.J
o
z
KJ
=
20
n
1979
1980
19E1
1982
1983
19E4
19E5
1986
CONTROL
100
ra
O
O
t+
BO
o
60
6
4A
z
2A
z
zLd
r!
=
n
1979
1gEO 1981
1982
19E5
1984
19E5
1986
FigureB€ Densltiesof white croakerlarvaeat lmpaetand Controlsltestrom 1979to
1986.
831
GOBY
ARROVV
100
fi-
ts
o
o
!l.
\
c;
z.
\/
:0i
60
z
tr.t
o
z
lJ.J
2A
1979
19E0
1981
19E2
CONTROL
ro
E
o
c)
rf
C'
=
E
a
zu.J
o
z
fi=
1979198o19E119E2198319E4198519E6
lmpastand control sltes''om
FigureB-z Densttiesof arow goby laruaeat
'B-32
1979to 1986'
GOBY
SHADOW
IMPACT
fF)
E
O
o
+
o
z
20
6
z
L.J
z
10
lrl
1979
fo
1980
1981
19E2
19E3
1984
1985
1985
E
O
o
s
\
o
z
6
ztrJ
o
z
trJ
=
197919E019E1198219E319E+19E51985
sites trom 1979to
Figure B-8 Denslties Of shadow goby larvae at lmpast and controt
1986.
B-33
GOBY
CHEEKSPOT
ro
E
o
o
+
100
o
z.
6
zuJ
50
z
L.J
1979
1980
1981
1982
19E3
CONTROL
150
ro
E
o
o
sf
J
100
3
6
z
Hs0
z
u.J
19791960198119E219E319E419851986
and Control sltes lrom 1979to
Figure B-9 Denstties ot cheelspot goby larvae at hpact
1986.
JACKSMELT
140
?,e
120
o
o
.+
100
E
o
z
80
6
60
zLiJ
z
l.l.l
40
20
U
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
E
1986
CONTROL
140
r.)
1985
120
O
o
+
c;
100
z
EO
F
6
50
CI
40
zIJ
z
UJ
=
20
rl
1979
1gEO 1981
1982
1983
19E4
19E5
19E6
FigureB-10 Densitiesof jacksmeltlarvaeat lmpact anctControtsltes from 1979to 1985.
Figure B-11 Densltlesot total tish taruaeat lmpast & Control sltes combinedfor each of
tn6 yearssampledfrom 1979to 1986and tor all yearscombined. Only monthsin which
sampteswere taken are labelled. r Incllcateszero denslty.
r{- s
g3
z"*
E
tn
-
trm
e
t
0
UAtlJJASO
teto
?t
I
?
o
z
E
an
z
E
e
g
I
5!100
7!
JOOo
E
g
?
o
2W
E
.A
t
3
a
a
e
ba
t
r0@
500
0
Drrn! \;t.urt'urE\r rr'l
FigUfe B-12 DenSltieS gt nofthefn ancno!ry Entae af lmPaq a eglruer
1985and lor atiyears-combined'Only months in
each of the yearEsamptedfrom 1979to r
nrtticfrsa.pies were tifen are labelled. lndicateszero densl$'
/)
E
I
2W
{ tsoo
d
z
rom
E
o
z
o
7
ra
5
500
zqoo
f,
xI
-+ 1500
e;
z
rooo
E
u1
=
6
7 soo
5
2000,
'r5@
tooo
500
2000,
1500
t@o
500
ivAvJJAsofiD
FvA
B-37
Figure B-13 Densltlesof whtte croaker larvae at lmpaet & Control sttes combined lor
ea-cnot the years samptedtrom 1979to 1986and for all years comblned. Only months in
which sampleswere taken are labelled. * indicateszero denslty.
f
&
€
to
-d
fr
t
3
:
?,
e
3
t
E
an
H
I
t!
5
r?
d
-
E
a
E
AU,l,J.AS
rf
€
g
E
E
H
FIA
FUAU.l.JAsotlD
at lmPast & Uonrror stles
Figure B-14 Denslties Ot totat fish larvae minus anchorry
gg6
and for all years-combined'
comblneclfor each ot the years samplectfrom 1979io fi
onty months In which samples were iaren are labelled. Indicateszero denstty'
g
cf
d
z
6
z
H
R
5
UAYt,JASO
x200
9a
5 roo
3*
Goo
E
o
z
H
F
5
.t00
2oO
r,
tDll
120,
r@o
t&
to
4S
N
12@.
r@0.
t@,
ro0,
aoo
2m
o
iyAU.t.lAsoliD
each of
laruaeat lmpact & Controlsites combinedlorin
FigureB-15 Densitlesof q-u-99nfish
rige 1;0.!:; llii{fEmuineo. onlvmonths which
trom19zs_to.
theyearssampted
r
Jah'pits were'Ufen are labelted. Indicateszero denstty.
m
I
t
500
3oo
i
d
z
2N
E
2cn
o
H
roo
3
:
100
{oo
4@
ne
I
300
o
z
?fi
E
o
zr
o
r00
t
0
a,
tttt
/,c
I
o
2
E
al,
z
H
3
t
,lOO,
JOO
26
rs
,l.FfaAL.r.J
UNIT 2
9Bo
o
lL
ooo
trl
E
=40
zJ
p2c
UNIT3
9Bo
o
t!
ooo
g
lrl
(D
=
240
J
t-
92C
1,
Januarv
ri*n
produce
o,j""ri"o"l
8.16
Fisure
*ar=I*;=,Gr"',0=t't
nuriiet oi OtV" a' Unlt did not
1984anctJuly 31, 1988. OpenUi,s inOicate
wnh no waterflow
oays
powercturing, pirti"urar mbntn;-"oridu"rs tndicairiiutu"t'ot
period'
t"re 1574Oail Outingthe sample
througha Unlt. it
"i"
B-41
UNIT2
tt7
520
lJ.
o
g.
lrJ
[D
=
z
10
1984
1985
1986
1987
198E
UNIT3
n
d20
tL
o
E,
Lu
co
3
10
z
19E4
1985
19E6
January1' 1984and
Untts2 alq 3 by To-$1|ry111r
at SONGS
FigureB-17Operatlons
duringa
of daysi unndidnotproducepower
Jury31,19gg.openbarsIndlcate-numoer
a unit'
oriaG *nn nowatdrtlowthrough
barsInc'caie-nuruet
partieurar
montnisoricr
6
(9
o
c9
c)
tt,
lr,
=
EI
TD
k
o
o
Ea3
HEfiEF
=
o
o
trl
E
EEiE
i Essfr:
ooo
oo
88BB
c.{
NaF
o
o
(9
c)
3
EoEe'R
E*E,-R g
-AEE
gE;
:AE
€Ei
C9
E
ttt
EO
o
z
o
v7
=
o:
o
I=
o
E
c
.l
=
a;EtEs
=
lL
?
C)oc()e
6OtOOu)
NC\|F?
('ox) r.lenNnrutrclA'lt\ET/rol
oo
!o
lD
('ox) r.ienmtallr€lAltv! .tvrot
v3
This page intentionaily left bianlc
APPEI{DIX C
MEfiIODS USEDIN FALL 1986SURVE'TOF
ARTIFICIAL AI{D NATT]RALREEFS
The methodsusedin the surveyof artificial and natural reefs in Southeru
C-aliforniaconductedin Fall 1986 are sumnarized in this Appendix A more
detailed descriptionof the methodsand analpes tsed is presentedin Ambrose
(1e87).
island,
"nifi.ia
werechosenfor this snrdy.For comparisog16nanrralreefsweresampled.Tbe 26
Ten anificial reefs,includingthreebreakrvatersitesand one
reefssampledrangefrom SanDiego to Vennra (FigureC-1,Table C-1). Eleven
uanrralreefsand foru artificial reefshad a giantkelp (MaooqstisWrifera)canoPyat
the f''ne of sarnpling.
Samplingmethodologlwas the snmeon natural and artificial reefs. Visual
transectswere usedto estimatethe densitiesof fuh. A diver swamat a constant
rate along a transectto minimize countingfish attracted1e hirn or countingfisb
twice, and recordedall fub encounteredwithin a corridor of specificdimensions;
to leuglh (Ambrose1987). Two
fuh were placedin life-stagecategoriesaccord,ing
typesof transectswereemployed:"adult"tratsects,in whichadult and subadultfish
were cousted, and '!oung-of-yea/' Bansects,h which young-of-yearand juvenile
fsh were counted. On eachreef, the transectswere locatedin two habitat t)?es:
nearthe bentbos,and in tbe watercolumn"
c- I
Eigbt benthic tra$iesls, 3Sm long and spaced at least 5 m apart, were
sampledon eachreef. In the "adult" 6enssgtg,adult and subadultfish were counted
rfithin a 3-m wide by 15-m higb corridor. Young-of-year and juvenile fish were
sampled along the sane benthic transects as tbe aduls and subadults, but after at
least one-half hour bad elapsedto allow the fish to recover from the disarbance of
tbe initial salnpling of adult fishes. The loung-of-year" corridor was only 1-m wide
to allow a more detailed search of the substrate, but was 2-m higb to ensue tbat
"young occurring off the substrate(suchas Chromispwaipirms) were included.
Adult and sub-adult fish ocorrring in the water column were sampied by
underwater video camera at a depth of about 3 m- Eight transects,approximateiy
3&m long were sampledat each site. Horizontai visibility was measuredand used
to determiue the width and height of each transectbased on a previous calibration
of the video camera- Young-of-year and juveniles were sampled in eight visual
transects(2-m higb x 1-m wide x 3&m long) in the s2me area as the adult video
survey.
To determine the size frequency distribution of fistt, divers estimated the
lengths of all fish seen during 3 [$min $vim around the reef.
Literature cited
Ambrose,R.F. Ig87. Comparisonof conmunitiesou artificial and nanrralreefsin
SouthernCalifornia with emphasison fish assemblages.Final Report
submittedto the MarineReviewCommittee.December1987.
c-2
Table C-l
Physical Characteristics of Reefssurveyedin Fall 1986
(sce
Rcefs are numbcrcd within tbc tso typc of rlcfs h ordcr of occutl'cncGbom Sorrtb to North
ratcr.
of
tbe
srufcc!
brcakratcrs ii nan.oarlc islElds tbrt rach tbe
iig,ft A1-il.-jio63j13r
No.
REEF
RB
Cooe
AnEA
(ha)
Dms
l{sanr Srcre
(D)
SussrRATE
(n)
ATNIICIALREEFS
Torrcy Pincs AR
?c Pendlctou AR
.[3 Neuport Beac.hAR
A4 L-4,. Harbor Brcakwatcr
- outsidc
A'5 L-4- Harbor Brealnater
- inside
tlarbor Breakcater
King
A6
N
Hermosa Beach AR
A8
Marina Del ReyAR
.A9 Pitas Point AR
A10 Rincon Oil Islard
A1
TPAR
PAR
NBAR
I.OAR
0"18
1.40
250
581
16
t5
U
11
3
11.
213F
3"&
larserodq bouldcrs
niiium & largprodr, boulders
concretcpilings,sand
boulders
LIAR
415
9
9'
38.1o
largeroct bouldcrs
KI{AR
HBAR
MDAR
PPAR
RIAR
386
o24
032
0.45
2"81
99'
2J2
2t4
16'
39.&
13
4L.1o
113
47.9
large roc\.boulders
coacretc Piliags sand
larce roch boulders
mfrium &large rod*' sald
largc rodq boulders
2A
(054e)
153
(15e)
MEA}T
(sE)
5
4
u3
16
?J3
n.b
2t3"
55
(1.42) (4.61)
I,{ATUNALREEFS
MSR
IJCR
DMR
BK
LFR
BC
24.6t
220.m'
214.M
SOTN
53.00
16.00
n,t3
183
16
t5
725
t1
16L
1
1
1
tr
&
hdrock
large rocJr,bouldcrs"saad
bcdrod
snall & mcd- rock, bedrock
laree rodr' be&ock
med- rock
rai'a,
A, med rodq sard
snAt "oUUtc,
soKN
l(x.(p
15
1
13
cobble,snall & med. rock
SMK
TMR
u4lp
162
185
N11 ksusa Bcach North
N12 Pe[caa Point
Nt3 Point Vicentc
N14 Don't Dirrc Tbcrc
N15 Flat Rock
LBN
PP
PV
DDT
FR
23J0
3Lm
551.m,
55Lm.
55Lm.
185
154
Rincoa IGlp
RK
6A0
u2
N1
N2
N3
N4
N5
N6
Marine Street Reaf
La Jolla Cove Recf
Del Mar Rcef
Barn IGlp
I-as Pulgs Recf
Box C;anyon
lv
San Onofrc Ifulp
- Mai! (+1)
N8 San Onofre Kclp
- North (002)
N9 San Mateo Kelp
N10 Two Man Rock
N16
MEAN
(sE)
I
t
4
soKM - l(X.m
u4.(r
03
16J
1t455
(i1t.609) (030)
Botb rccfs tG pan of tbe b Jolla rlcf goriP-lc1
Both reeG ere.!an of tbc S'" Oaofrc f.!F B€d
Both rccls ue pan of rbc San MateoXctp !{
AI thrcc rects ire Fn of rhc Prlc Verdcs Peainsuh rccf mpler
c-3
L&
18.&
0t
tr.9
ua
158
r.6
(>
tr
5
0.
35.0"
33"&
9b
18"&
10"s
4A
(0J9)
11J'
6.59)
mcdium rodq sand
mcd. & large roc\ bedro€k'
sand bouldcr
san4 cobblc, rocks, bedrock
snall rodr, bcdrosk
boulde$' bcdroct
bouldcrs, bedrock
uedium & targe rodr'
bcdtoclg boulders
medium & large rodr, sand
a
c'
-
I
Ilp
al -
o
o
b
Y-2
atr
b
Lz-z
(g
-1I|
,I
L
o
o - G'
-- rS
('' -
k=
L
c'
a
o
€
(,
tl
z
z
a
ol
+z-
FE,
'lt
l
o
I l\
F €{'
<=
lz
e
-
o
a
c
I
N
o
";!E
a
o
c
{.'2
r9
?z
:E:
p:=
b
6E
7io
-tl
EE
(E=
g9
gs
=t
:0
.o
(,lF
g6
6o
>.E
oo
>o
bb
a
a
o
c
z9
3r
cto
:!
.:a
tQo
Eg
rFb
a
N
=E
'EE
-o:
cLo
tg-
='i
..o
EO
OE
<o"*"
si'
.- y'
eF
6
t
E:
<B
o
c-4
E
o
<
c
2O
@i=
s0.E:
\t3= E
z
Eg
LO
APPENDX D
CAIfT'I,ATING TIIE SIZE OF ARTIIICIAL REEF
NEEDEDFOR MITIGATION
The MRC hasproposedthat afiificiat reefsbe usedto mitigate nro tlpes of
impacts. First, an artificial reif could serveas in-kind replaement of SanOaofre
Kelp Bed resogrces.Second,an anificial reef couldprovide out'of-kind mitigation
for midwaterfuh losses,suchas thosecarsedby SONGS'killing of fuh lanae and
eggs.As noted in Chapter8, a critical aspectof uing artificid reefsasmitigationis
determiningtbe sizeof reef needed. Different proceduresare neededfor the two
different applicationsof ar:tificial reefs, iD-kind and out-of-kiBd mitigation; the
on size are
processesused by tbe MRC in developingtbeir recommendations
ciescribed
below.
D1.1 Size needed for in-kind mitigation
As noted in Sestion 833, there is insufEcieut evidence to warrant
constructinga reef tbat is smallerthan the areaof Daffral reef impacted;in fact, tbe
generalgncertaintyaboutthe proessesoperatingou artificial reefsarguesthat the
ardficial reef shouldbe largerthantbe impactcdarea
There are no establisbedpolicies that could be used to determine the
appropriate"compensationratio" tbat should be used. Other mitigation projects
baveusedratiostbat rangefrom 1:1to 4:1 or 5:1 or more. Tbe MRC decidedthat a
15:1 ratio of artificialreef to areaof kelp lostwouldbe appropriatefor SONGS'
D-1
The actual size of reef recornrnendedis basedon the area of kelp estimated
to be lost from the San Onofre Kelp Bed (SOK) due.to the operation of SONGS:
80 ba Using the 15:1 ratio, the sizeof artificial reef neededto mitigate tbe impacs
of SONGS on the SauOnofre Kelp Bed was estimatedto be 120ba"or 300 acres'
In addition to tbe impacts to kelp, SONGS has reduced tbe abundancesof
kelp forest invertebrates and fuh. Becausethe kelp forest invertebrates are closely
provide a
tied to the hard substrateat SOK a 12Gha artifrcial reef would probably
kelp
15:1 replacenent of invertebrates. However, this migbt oot be the casefor
forest fuh.
to the
As noted in Chapter 8, the fact that no large artificial reefs similat
proposed reef have been built means thdt it is not possible to predict the dersiry
have
(much less the production) of fuh that will occur on such a reef' However' I
to estimate
used tbe Fall 1986surveyof artificial and nanrral reefs (Ambrose 1987)
the biomass densities that might occur on a large anificial reef'
MT/ha
Existing artifrcial reefs had a mean biomassdensityof nearly 05
reefs
(Table D-1). Althougb fish densitywashigberon artificial ree& than natural
1987and
dgring tbis and other surveyscomparingthe reef types (see Ambrose
be the casefor a very largeartificial reef' All of
Chapter8), this will not necessarily
Reef) aod all other
the artificial reefs sampled (including PendletonArtifrcial
than mostuanual
artificial reefs constnrctedso far in California are Eruchsmaller
(Although
reefs,and consistof isolatedpiles of rock in tbe midst of a sandPlai!'
actualareacoveredby
somerecentreeft spreadreef modulesovera largearea'the
of a{stiug artificial reefs probably
rock is still quite small.) The characteristics
D-2
increasetbe uumberof fuh attrastedto the reefs,tberebyartificially enhancingtbe
densityof fisb (seeCbapter8 asd Ambroseand Swarbrick1989). A large artificial
reef, sucbas the proposedmitigationreef,would not attract zucba hi8&proponion
of fuh, so that the fish biomassdensitieswould probablybe lon'er than ou existiug
artificial reefs.
The bestestimateof the densitytbat would occuron the proposedmitigation
reef is perhapstbe avgragedensityfound ou the naturalreefssurveyedin Fall 1986'
029 MT/ha- At this density,a 12Gbareef would jrst replacethe biomassof fsb
(TableD"1).
lost"and 18S190ha wouldbe neededfor 15:1replacement
Of cogrse,sincethe anificial reef wouldbe designed1e mimic tbe pbysical
structue of SoK biomassdensityon &e artificial reef might be as low as it wasin
the rnain portion of SOK 0.19LIT/h, i! which casea ?32-haartificiat reef would
be required for 15:1 replacement(basedon theseestimates). SinceSOK had
atreadybeenimpactedby SONGSwbenit wassurveyediD 1986,0.19MT/h might
be too low an estimate;however,the 214-haDel Mar Reefhad a biomassdensityof
low. On tbe otber ban{ the San
only 0.17MT/ba, so this valueis not unreasouably
Mateo Kelp Be4 whieibsewedasthe control for SOK had a biomassdensityof 036
MT/ha Overall,it simplyis not possibleto predict the densitythat would occuron
tbe proposedmitigatios reef.
D12 Sizeneededfor out'of'kind mitigation
There is no clear, simple, quantitative link betweenthe Bigbt-wide lossesof
fish and the size of reef neededto completelymitigate those losses.Likewise, there
D-3
are few guidelines for developing such a link (The most cornffion approacb to this
tlpe of problem, the Habitai Evaluation ProceduresIHEPI developedby USF'IVS'
focuseson habitat values; since SONGS does not degrade the midwater fuh habitat'
HEP cannot be used here.) In the absenceof a quantitative metho4 one frequentiy
used approachis to reiy on test professionaljudgement",decirlingby consensuson
a size that seemsreasonable to some panel of experts. We have choseninstead to
try to calqrlate a value. The method I describs in this section has the advantageof
being explicit about the stepstaken to arrive at a value (which is one of the principal
advantages of HEP as well), but we recognize that our assumptions €nnot be
verified and that our estimate depends in Pan on a subjeaive judgement'
Nonetheless,it is the best estimate we can make.
Our approach relies on rough estimates because virnrally none of the
necessaryinformation is accurately loown- We have dealt with this problem by
presentingminimun and maximum estimates.
D12.1 Minimum estimate
The rninimrrm size of ardfrcial reef needed to mitigate for tbe Bight'wide
effeas of SONGS on frsh is 0 ha (Table DA).
This rninimum size is based os
complete biological compensationof the lossesof fish larrrae;that is, there would be
no loss io s3srring stock in spite of SONGS killing 4 to 5 billion fish larvae'
Althougb complete biological compensationis not [ikely, in principle it is possible'
D-4
DL22 *T"-
estimete
The ma:rimumsize of artificial reef neededto mitigate for tbe Bigbt-wide
effectson SONGSon fish is estinatedto be 240haOable D'2).
Oru estimateof the sizeof reef neededto mitigatethe Bigbt-wideeffectsof
SONGSis basedoDtwo steps(FigureD-1). First, we estimatethe biomassof adult
fisb expectedto be lost as a result of SONGS'entrainmentof fisb lan'ae. This
estimateis derivedfrom the analysesof adult-equivaleutlosses(TechnicatRepon
D) and Bight-wideeffects(TechnicalReport M) and estimatesof the Bight-wide
we coDvertthe estimatedloss,in tors,
fuhes. Second,
standirgstocksof tbe a.ffected
to area of rocky reef basedon a judgemetrtabout the relativevaluesof the lost
midwaterfi5bversusthe communityof organismsliving on a rock reef (includingthe
tonnageof fsb ou a hectareof ree$.
The estimatesof biomasslost due to SONGSare givenin Tabte D'3. The
combined5gsrling stockof white croakerand queenfisbis estimatedto be almost
10,000MT (AppendixB in TechnicalReportD); with an estimatedadult equivalent
ioss of about l1Vo tor thesenvo species(TechnicalReport D), and assumingtliat
this adult equivalent los leads to a lT%odecreasein standing stock (i.e., no
biological compensation;TechnicalReport M), we estimatethat SONGScausesa
lossof 1000MT of thesetwo species.The otherspecieskilled by SONGShad lorper
estimatedadult equivalentlosses,whichwe approximateas about tVo fsr tbe group
as a whole. Altbougbwe caDnotestimatetbe standingstocksof thesespecies,it
seemssafeto assumethat the combinedstockdoesnot exceed20,000MT, so the
loss of these speciesis estirnatedto be 200 MT (Table D'3)'
D-5
[This exciudes
northern anchovy,which has an estimatedsl2arlingstock of 500,000MT but an
adult equivalentloss of <O.lVo;Technical Report D.]
Tbu, the naximtrm
redustionin the standingstocls of fuh in the Bight is estimatedto be about 1200
MT.
In order to determinethe size of artificial reef neededto mitigate these
losses,we ueedto cowert the 1200MT of mostlymidwaterfishesto area of rocky
reef; this out-of-kindconversionrequiresa judgementaboutthe relativevdues of
midwaterfisb and roclryreef communities.Oue possibilitywould be to judgethat
midwater fish and rocky reef fuh have the samevalue; this would require an
artificial reef of 1200ha or larger (basedon fish biomassdensitiesin Ambrose
we believe
estimatebecause
1987).However,we do not believethis is a reasonable
rocky reef communitiesare generallyconcededto be morevaluablethat midwater
fish suchasqueenfishandwhite croaker.
The rocky reef communitycreatedby constnrctingan artificial reef might be
consideredmore valuable than the midwater fish killed by SONGS for several
reasons:(1) The tjlPeof fish. Rockyreefszupporta numberof speciesthat have
beea given a special protected status,nrch as garibaldi and black croaker; in
contrast,none of the speciessubstantiallyimpactedby SONGSare protected. (2)
The numberof economicallyvaluablefish. Roclsyreefszupporta high densityof
economicallyvaluablefish, inclurlingkelp bass,sandbass,surserchesand rocldsh.
Atthougb so6e midwater frsh, suchas barracudaand yellowtaif are economically
valuable,theseare not impactedby SONGS..However,both white croakerand
queenfishhavea limited comgercialand/or sportvalue: theyare comrnoniycaught
of
but they are not higblyvaluedspecies.(3) The permanence
by sportfishermen,
D-6
the rockl, reef. A properly designedand located rocky reef sbould continue to
produceresourcesindefinitely,and in any'caselong after Units 2 and 3 havebeen
dgssmmissionedand ceaseimpactingmidwater fuh. (4) The relative rariqv of
rochvreef versussandyhottom in the SouthernCalifofnia Bight. For example,only
l4%oof,theshorelineconsistsof roclryareiasin SanDiego &-ry,
while in Orange
Conntyroclry areascompriseonlry7Voof tbe shoreline,and relativelyfew subtidal
reefs are fognd along 169rnainlandin SouthernCaliforaia (Ambroseet al. L989).
rcclryreeft in SouthernCalifornia
(5) Recreationaland aestheticvalpes.Becatrse
support a diverse biological community coutaining macroalgae,multicolored
invertebratessucbas sponges,tunicates,gorgoniaqsand nudibranchs,and a variety
of fuh species,they providesignifieantrecreationaland aestheticvaluesto scuba
diversthat are not providedby tbe assenblageof midwaterfisb. (6) The diversit'v
and abundanceof organismson the reef, includinginvertebratesand algae(perbaps
of fisb a rocky reef would
includinBganr kelp). In place of a singleassemblage
produce a full, complexcommunityof organisms.Thousandsof different species
belouging to ma1rydifferent ta;ronomicgrouPslive on rocky reefs' Tbe roclcy
substrateis tlpically coveredwith algae(20Voto 3AVocover)and invenebtates(40Vo
1987).I:rger invertebrarcs(sucbasgorgonian$suails,sea
to S|Vocover)(Ambrose
urchins and sea stars) are also conmoa; large inn'ertebrates(all species)had an
averageof densityof ?5-30/mzduringtbe FaIl 1986zurveyof artifrcial and nanral
reefs tbrougbout SouthernCaliforaia (Ambrose1987). And of course'there are
Bany reef fish on rockyreefs;duringthe FaIl 1986surveytbe biomassdensityof fisb
near tbe bottom was estimatedto be 03-05 MT per ba (Ambrose1987). [Note:
be
This suney onty sampledthe conspianousfisb on reefs; the estimateswould
somewbathigberif the crypticspecieshadbeenincluded.In addition,the biomass
densityof fuh il tbe watercolumncouldbe substantial(morethan 0'2-0'aMT/ba)
D-1
for reefstbat supponedgiant kelp. A reasonablerougbestinate of the totai fuh
biomasson a reefwouldbe 1 MT/ha.l
In spite of the manyreasouifor judging a roclryreef more valuablethan tbe
midrraterffi irnpactedby SONGS,there is no acceptedprocedurefor quantiffing
the relative values of these two dissimilar resources. At this poinq judging the
relativeworth of thesetwo resourcesmustbe'a societalor policy decisionrather
than a seientificone. We believethat it couldreasonablybe determinedthat oneha
of rockyreef supportsa communitythat is worth 5 MT of white croake&queenfish,
andtbe otherspeciesimpactedby SONGS'entrainstentof their larvae'
Usingthe conversionfactor of 5 MT impactedfish per ba of roclcyreef,the
into 240ha of rockyreef (TableD'2)'
estimatedlossof 1200MT of fish ua.nslates
We think it is unlikely that the lossesare large enougbto require a 24bha
ardficial reef. To arrive at this estimate,we usedmaximumvalues,we assumedthat
biologicalcompensationdid oot occur(althougbso6e biomasscompensationseens
likely; TecbnicalReport M), andwe judgeda ba of artificial reef to be worth only 5
MT of impactedfish.
D133 Bestestimate
'lhe ir4Rgs best estimateof tbe size of artificial reef neededto mitigate
SONGS
Bigbt-widefish lossesmoderatesboth tbe estimateof biomasslost due to
and the relativevaluesof midwaterfuh and roclsyreef cornmunities'
D-8
We think that the estimateof 1200MT of fish lost might be too high. While
we hink that it is unlikely that there is perfea compensationof lanal losses,some
biomasscompensatioD
seemslikely. In additioq we haveassumedthat late larval
stagescannot avoid entrainmentand tbat dl larvae entrained into SONGSare
killed in tbe plant; if tbeseassumptions
are trot corect, the numberof larvaekilled
by SONGSwil havebeen overestimated.Therefore,the biomasslost seemslikely
to be between several hundred tons to more thas one thousandtons, and an
estimateof 600MT lost seetrEmostreasouable(TableD-3).
In additioD,the conversion
rate of 5 MT of impaetedfish per ha of roclcyreef
mayundenraiueroclcyreefs. We perceivea consen$rsamongmarinescientists(and
the generalpublic) that roclryreefsare far morevaluabletban sandyhabitats. More
imponantly, the rocky reef will continue to bave value long after SONGS bas
stoppedkilling larvae. It seernstair to considert ha of rocky reef to be wortb 10
MT of impactedfish.
These more moderateestimatessuggestthat a 6$ha artificial reef would
mitigatethe lossescausedby the entrainmentof fisb (Table D'2).
D-9
D2.0 Literature Cited
Ambrose, R.F. 1987. Comparison of commusities os artificial and natr'ual reefs in
Southeru California, with emphasis on fish assemblages. Final Report
submitted to tbe Marine Review Committee. December 1987.
Ambrose, R.F. and s.L Swarbrick
1989. Comparison of fuh assemblageson
artificial and natural reefs off the coast of Southern Catifornia Bulletin of
Marine ScienceaAz 718-733.
Ambrose, R.F., D.C. Reed, J.M. Engle and M.F. Caswell. 1989. Caiifornia
Comprehensive Oftshore Resource Study:
Sumlary
of Biologicai
Resources.Report to the California StateLands Commission 146pp.
D-10
Table D-l
Size of artilicial reef neededfor in.kind replacementof lclp forest fish losses(36 MI).
Biornass csdmatcs arl bsscd d $rruy of erttfidal rnd naarel rccfs conducted iD Fall 19t6 by
Anbrosc (1987) rnd r=fcr only to thc bionass of frsh ncar tte boEoa; oD Dost reefs, biomass
dcnsitywas much lowr in tberatcroluml.
Ihe propoccd nitigntion rcef would scrve to replace
rcsouFceslost at tbe Sal Onofn KolF Bcd (SOK), partiolarly thc Main portion of tbe bed
dormcoast fmm the ditrusers.
BIoNTASSEmMATE
Sounc
SrzF 1IEEDED
(MT/HA)
Repreceuenr
15:1
REFI.ACETT{EATT
L1
Meaa of dl arti6cial reefs
0.4s2
80 ha
120ha
Densiry on Pcndlcton Artificiat Rcef
0359
lm ha
150ha
Meaa of all natural recfs
0.286
15 ha
187ha
Mean at SOKMaiD Bed
0.191
188ha
ZgZha
Mea! at Dcl Mar Resf
0"r,4
n7 ha
310 ha
D- 11
Table D-2
Calculation of artificial reef area neededfor out-of-kind nitigation
fhe minimum cstlmaic ls based on thc assumpdon that therc is couplete biological
compcnsation,so thcrc ls actuallyno biomrss lost duc to thc operution of SONGS. Tbe maximum
csrinntc EssuDGsao biological compensadon(scc Table I)-3) and judges that 5 MT of midsater
fish is worth t ha of roctcyrccf, The bcst esttnatc assumestbcrc is some biomass compensation
and that rucky reef communities arc reladvcly more valuabla
Btol,rAssLosr
REIATTVEVALT'ES
AREA OFROO(Y REEF
0
Minimum
0
Maximum
1200MT
5 MT fish = t ha reef
240ha
Best estinatc
600MT
10 MT fish = 1 ba rccf
50ha
D. L2
TableD-3
Estimatesof biomasslost
lte maximum cstims& is bsscd on tbc assunptiou thrt then is no biomass compensatiou, i.c"na 107oAdult
h
equi".tent Loss sould lead to a lt}% rcduction L stafiing stoct. lte !Cg! cstimatc considcrs lhrt tberc"Esy
be
not
may
lrnre
some biomass compensation,tratcrlarnl stagesBty b eUle to ryoid cntninmeug .Dd atl Esh
killed aftar beiry cDtr'aine&
SPECIES
SIAI.IDINGSTOCK
ADIJLTEOUrvALENTI.OSS
BroldAssLosr
10Vo
lVo
1000MT
2M MT
-
Maximum estimatc
Queenfsh & while croaker
All otber species*
10,000MT
20,000MT
12MMT
Best estimate
Queenfrsb& whirtecroaker
All other species"
10,000MT
20.mMT
5OOMT
1OOMT
t0%
7%
-
600 MT
1 f,lduding aorthcra anc.hovy,c,hich bad aa adult cguiralcot loss <0"1%.
D-13
Biomassof adult fish
Relativevaluesof lost
fish versus
water-column
roclcyreefcommunitY
Area of roclcYreef
neededfor mitigation
to
FigureD-1: Processusedto estimateareaof rockyreefneeded
reptacemidwaterfishimpactscausedbySoNGS.
D-14