HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993-07-12; Beach Preservation Committee; MinutesMinutes of: Beach Erosion Committee
Date of Meeting: July 12, 1993
Time of Meeting: 9:00 a.m.
CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Copley called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Members Vigil, Jackson, Meyer, Copley and Reasons.
Absent: Member Hall and Member Williams.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
By proper motion, the minutes of the meeting held on June 12, 1993 were approved as
amended.
1. ARMY CORPS OFFSHORE STUDY: Staff Member Jantz reported that
Doug Chitwood of the Army Corps has been honing down damage reports to the
structures along the beach and various City streets, water lines, sewage lines, storm
drains and power lines. The Corps expects to have an initial draft ready by mid-August.
Steve and Corps members will walk the beach this week to assess potential damage.
2. OPPORTUNISTIC SAND: Staff Member Jantz gave an update on the Opportunistic
Sand Program. Staff mailed letters to the affected property owners notifying them of the
site interest. Staff will update Committee on progress.
3. KELP BED MITIGATION PROGRAM: Staff Member Jantz reviewed the status of the
Kelp Bed Mitigation Program and discussed letters from Coastal Commission. The
Committee suggested that staff contact Dr. Sonu for additional advice. The Committee
also noted the need to send a letter to SCE (Mr. Bob Grove) requesting consideration of
a portion of Kelp Bed Mitigation adjacent to Carlsbad coastline.
4. MEMBER ASSIGNMENTS: Chair Copley made member assignments as follows:
LuAnn Hall: Opportunistic Sand & Sand Berming
Sally Vigil: Kelp Bed Project
Don Jackson: SANDAG - Coordinate Shoreline Erosion Committee
Bob Meyer: SDG&E & Dredging
(Member Meyer would like to have a meeting with Paul O'Neal of SDG&E)
David Williams: Alternative Financing Sources
Ramona Reasons: Oceanside ByPass Project
Chair Copley also left the option open to form sub-committees on an as-needed basis as
an issue becomes hot.
By proper motion, the meeting was adjourned at 10:10 a.m. to the regular meeting on
August 9, 1993 at the Housing and Redevelopment Office.
Respectfully submitted,
BELINDA GUZMAN
STATE Of CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY
TEM 3 PETE WILSON, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219
VOICE AND TDD (415) 904-5200
June 23,1993
Mayor John Davis
City of Encinitas
505 S. Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024-3633
Dear Mayor Davis:
Thank you for your letter of May 21,1993, requesting that the City of Encinitas be
considered as a candidate site for the San Onofre mitigation kelp reef.
The site selected for the kelp reef must meet the criteria of Condition C of Permit
183-73 (copy enclosed) among which is the requirement that it be located near the
San Onofre kelp bed which was impacted by operation of the San Onofre Nuclear
Generating Station.
Of all the possible sites considered for the kelp reef site by the Southern California
Edison Company, Encinitas was the farthest away from San Onofre. Because several
other sites close to San Onofre met the permit criteria, Encinitas was ruled out of
further consideration as a candidate site for the kelp reef.
As described in more detail in the enclosed copy of my letter to Sally Vigil of the City
of Carlsbad, the purpose of the kelp reef is to replace lost and damaged kelp
resources at the San Onofre kelp bed and to produce a productive kelp reef
ecosystem. The reef will be designed to minimize any disturbance of sand
movement, but its primary purpose is not to be a mode of shoreline protection.
The details of the survey of potential sites for the artificial reef are contained in a
report prepared for Southern California Edison Company by Eco-Systems
Management Associates, Inc. in January 1993. This report, "Survey of Potential Sites
for the Construction of an Artificial Reef; Final Revised Report" consists of more
than 150 pages including appendices and figures. If you wish to review this report, it
should be available directly from Eco-Systems Management Associates, Inc., or from
Mr. Bob Grove of the Southern California Edison Company. Please let us know if
you need our assistance in obtaining a copy of the report:
Mayor John Davis
June 23,1993
Page 2
If you have any further questions, or would like to discuss the reef further, please
contact me at (415) 904-5244 or Ms. Chris Parry at (415) 904-5245.
Sincerely yours,
Susan M. ^Hansch, Manager
Energy and Ocean Resources Unit
cc: Sally Vigil, City of Carlsbad
Robert S. Grove, Southern California Edison Company
Enclosures: Kelp reef site selection criteria from Permit 183-73 Condition C
Letter to Sally Vigil, City of Carlsbad
encinitiwp
CONDITON C: KELP REEF MITIGATION
The permittee shall, in consultation with the Executive Director, select a
site and construct an artificial reef as mitigation for the resource losses at
the San Onofre Kelp Bed (SOK) caused by the San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Station (SONGS). The reef shall be designed to replace the lost and damaged
resources at the San Onofre Kelp Bed Reef and produce a persistent giant kelp
forest and associated ecosystem. The reef shall be located in the vicinity of
the SONGS, but outside the influence of the SONGS discharge plume and water
intake.
After selecting potential sites, and conducting a pre-construction site
assessment at these potential sites, the permittee shall select a site and
design a reef which meets the standards and objectives listed below. The
permittee shall submit the final reef plan to the Commission for its review
and approval.
1.0 SITE SELECTION
Three or more potential reef sites shall be selected based on, but not limited
to, the following criteria:
1) Location as near as possible to the San Onofre Kelp Bed, and
preferably between Dana Point (Orange Co.) and the Pendleton
Artificial Reef (San Diego Co.), but outside the influence of the
SONGS discharge plume and water intake;
2) Minimal disruption of natural reef or cobble habitats and sensitive
or rare biotic communities;
3) Suitable substrate with low mud and/or silt content (e.g. hard-packed
fine to coarse grain sand, exposed cobble or bedrock without an
established biological community, or cobble or bedrock covered with a
thin layer of sand);
4) Location at a depth locally suitable for kelp growth and recruitment;
5) Location near a persistent natural kelp bed;
6) Location away from sites of major sediment deposition;
7) Minimal interference with uses such as vessel traffic, vessel
anchorages, commercial fishing, mariculture, mineral resource
extraction, cable or pipeline corridors;
8) Location away from power plant discharges, waste discharges, and
dredge spoil deposition sites;
9) Location that will not interfere with or adversely affect resources
of historical or cultural significance such as shipwrecks and
archeological sites.
6775N
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE RESOURCES AGENCY ,TEM 3
PETE WILSON, Governor
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
45 FREMONT, SUITE 2000
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105-2219
VOICE AND TDD (415) 904-5200
June 23, 1993
Sally Vigil, Chairperson
Beach Erosion Committee
Engineering Department
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, CA
Dear Ms. Vigil:
Thank you for your letter of May 17, 1993 requesting the California Coastal
Commission to require Southern California Edison Company to study the potential
of locating part of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station kelp bed mitigation
reef offshore the northerly coastline of the City of Carlsbad.
California Coastal Commission Permit 183-73, Condition C, requires Southern
California Edison Company to select a site and to construct an artificial reef as
mitigation for the resource losses at the San Onofre Kelp Bed caused by the San
Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. The site selected must meet specific criteria in
the Coastal Commission permit. The Commission must approve the final kelp reef
plan and grant a separate coastal permit before construction on the reef can begin.
The reef must be designed to replace the lost and damaged resources of the San
Onofre Kelp Bed reef and to produce a persistent kelp forest and associated
ecosystem. The purposes of the mitigation kelp reef are to replace lost and damaged
kelp forest resources and to produce a persistent kelp forest and associated
ecosystem. I have attached a copy of the relevant part of Permit 183-73 for your
information.
We share your concern about the sand and the sand supply for local beaches.
Southern California Edison Company is required by Permit 183-73, Condition C,
section 1.1 to predict the effect of the mitigation reef on local sand transport and
local beaches. Although it is unlikely that the mitigation kelp reef will have an
effect on the local beaches because the reef must be built offshore of the main zone
of sand motion to achieve its required objectives. Nevertheless, contractors for
Southern California Edison Company are currently studying the potential problem
by a combination of computer models and field experiments off the northerly
coastline of the City of Carlsbad. When the study is complete there will be a more
definitive answer to this question.
With regard to your specific request, Southern California Edison Company has
already studied the feasibility of placing the mitigation reef off the northerly coast of
Sally Vigil, Chairperson
June 23, 1993'_
Page 2
Carlsbad, but this and other sites south of Carlsbad were ruled out for a variety of
reasons including long distance from the impact site (San Onofre) compared to
other potential sites, and because the available area with the appropriate conditions
for the kelp reef was not large enough to meet the requirements of the Coastal
Commission permit.
The details of the survey of potential sites for the artificial reef are contained in a
report prepared for Southern California Edison Company by Eco-Systems
Management Associates, Inc. in January 1993. This report, "Survey of Potential Sites
for the Construction of an Artificial Reef; Final Revised Report" consists of more
than 150 pages including appendices and figures. If you wish to review this report, it
should be available directly from Eco-Systems Management Associates, Inc., or from
Mr. Bob Grove of the Southern California Edison Company. Please let us know if
you need our assistance in obtaining a copy of the report.
If you have any further questions, or would like to discuss the reef further, please
contact me at (415) 904-5244 or Ms. Chris Parry at (415) 904-5245.
Sincerely yours,
Susan M. r^ansch
Manager, Energy and Ocean Resources Unit
cc: John Davis, Mayor, City of Encinitas
Robert S. Grove, Southern California Edison Company
enclosure: Kelp reef site selection criteria from Permit 183-73 Condition C
carlsbal.wp
CONDITON C: KELP REEF MITIGATION
The permittee shall, in consultation with the Executive Director, select a
site and construct an artificial reef as mitigation for the resource losses at
the San Onofre Kelp Bed (SDK) caused by the San Onofre Nuclear Generating
Station (SONGS). The reef shall be designed to replace the lost and damaged
resources at the San Onofre Kelp Bed Reef and produce a persistent giant kelp
forest and associated ecosystem. The reef shall be located in the vicinity of
the SONGS, but outside the influence of the SONGS discharge plume and water
intake.
After selecting potential sites, and conducting a pre-construction site
assessment at these potential sites, the permittee shall select a site and
design a reef which meets the standards and objectives listed below. The
permittee shall submit the final reef plan to the Commission for its review
and approval.
1.0 SITE SELECTION
Three or more potential reef sites shall be selected based on, but not limited
to, the following criteria:
1) Location as near as possible to the San Onofre Kelp Bed, and
preferably between Dana Point (Orange Co.) and the Pendleton
Artificial Reef (San Diego Co.), but outside the influence of the
SONGS discharge plume and water intake;
2) Minimal disruption of natural reef or cobble habitats and sensitive
or rare biotic communities;
3) Suitable substrate with low mud and/or silt content (e.g. hard-packed
fine to coarse grain sand, exposed cobble or bedrock without an
established biological community, or cobble or bedrock covered with a
thin layer of sand);
4) Location at a depth locally suitable for kelp growth and recruitment;
5) Location near a persistent natural kelp bed;
6) Location away from sites of major sediment deposition;
7) Minimal interference with uses such as vessel traffic, vessel
anchorages, commercial fishing, mariculture, mineral resource
extraction, cable or pipeline corridors;
8) Location away from power plant discharges, waste discharges, and
dredge spoil deposition sites;
9) Location that will not interfere with or adversely affect resources
of historical or cultural significance such as shipwrecks and
archeological sites.
6775N