Kelp on the Way? : Edison Wants to Scale Back Plan to Build Reef Near San Onofre Plant

They thrive unseen and silent off the California coast, these amber-toned kelp forests that teem with a rich bounty of marine life.

Among some ocean enthusiasts, giant kelp communities are viewed with the same reverence as ancient redwood forests.

So when a kelp bed off San Onofre seemed to be failing mysteriously, alarmed scientists sprang into action.

Their conclusion: Kelp was being killed by murky water from a nearby nuclear power plant. The solution: an unprecedented plan to build a 300-acre artificial kelp reef off Orange County’s shores.

But the reef may never materialize. The state Coastal Commission on Tuesday is poised to vote on a request from plant operator Southern California Edison to curtail one of the most comprehensive marine mitigation packages ever proposed in California--one that encompasses reef-building, wetlands restoration and monitoring.

The prospect of a rollback has triggered vociferous debate as Edison and environmentalists clash over complex issues ranging from fish counts to electricity rates.

The seaweed issue has even spawned a hearing today in Santa Monica by state Sen. Tom Hayden’s Natural Resources Committee on what a news release labels “Edison’s broken environmental promises.”

The kelp question is proving especially divisive--in part because of the difficulty of probing the health of these submarine forests and pinpointing changes that may be caused by natural phenomena or by the discharge from the twin 1,100-megawatt reactors known as the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

Edison says its scientists have conducted sonar tests aboard boats above the San Onofre kelp bed, sending sound waves through the water. The tests, Edison says, prove the bed has shrunk much less than earlier believed. So Edison is asking for the cancellation of what experts say would have been the largest artificial kelp reef of its kind in the nation. In its place, Edison is proposing a far smaller, 16.8-acre experimental reef off the coast of San Clemente.

“We stand behind our commitment to completely mitigate all known impacts, and we think the package we’ve proposed goes well beyond what reasonable people would find proportional to the impact,” said Frank Melone, Edison’s mitigation project manager.

But the Coastal Commission’s staff calls Edison’s proposal woefully inadequate.

“The mitigation they’re proposing doesn’t come anywhere near matching the impacts,” said Susan Hansch, a commission staff official.

Environmental groups, distrustful of Edison’s findings, accuse the plant operator of going back on its word. They contend the power company is trying to maximize profits while sacrificing environmental values.

So deep do suspicions run that one Edison critic, marine biologist Rimmon Fay, planned to dive off his boat into the San Onofre kelp bed on Friday to see with his own eyes how the kelp bed is faring.

“Edison agreed to the mitigation, and now they’re trying to back away from it, and that’s a pretty bitter disappointment,” said Fay, one of three scientists who conducted a landmark study of how San Onofre may be altering the marine environment.

That study made headlines statewide in 1989 when it concluded that the plant’s cooling system was killing millions of fish, eggs and larvae--prompting the mitigation plan approved by the commission in 1991 with Edison’s consent.

The scientists determined that turbidity stirred up by the cooling system had reduced underwater light and caused a 60% shrinkage in the San Onofre kelp bed. To offset that loss, plant owners were ordered to construct a 300-acre reef.

To date, however, nothing has been constructed.

In fact, Edison maintains the San Onofre kelp bed is now as large or larger than it was before the plant began operating--and that a 16.8-acre experimental reef would more than make up for any damage.

In hopes of resolving the deadlock, the Coastal Commission staff and Edison agreed to have three scientists review the Edison data. Although they concluded the kelp damage was less than once believed, they did not come forward with a hard-and-fast number of how many acres of kelp have been damaged.

Scientists working with the commission have calculated that a 122-acre reef is necessary. In addition to the 16.8-acre reef, they are proposing a 105-acre reef, to be built with the proceeds of a $19.7-million trust fund that would be established by Edison.

*

All these years of scientific review have been consumed assessing a forest that most Southern Californians will never see.

But people who work with kelp say that these fast-growing submarine plants are laden with both ecological and economic value. As many as 800 species of fish and other living things dwell in the so-called amber forest.

“Kelp beds are probably the single most important ecological habitat off the Southern California coastline,” said Dennis Bedford, a marine biologist with the state Department of Fish and Game. More kelp off the Orange County coast, he said, translates into more fish.

And kelp itself is more valuable than it might appear.

The nation’s largest kelp harvester, NutraSweet Kelco Co., trims the tops of kelp plants from San Diego to Monterey to extract algin, a thickening agent used in food products, cosmetics and pharmaceuticals.

Rarely has kelp generated as much tumult as it promises to do Tuesday. Both Edison and the Coastal Commission staff say they’re simply seeking fairness.

“Given the uncertainties surrounding kelp impacts, and their relative insignificance, this level of expenditure cannot be justified,” Edison wrote in a Friday response to the staff proposal.

But coastal planners and environmentalists disagree.

“There’s kelp out there now, so it’s hard for people to understand why everyone’s worried,” Hansch said. “But it’s not what you see, but what you don’t see. The fact is, there would be more kelp there if not for the plant.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Keying on Kelp The current controversy over the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station focuses on how it may be the changing ocean environment off its shores, and what plant owners must do to compensate. The plant’s cooling system draws in more than 1.6 million gallons of seawater per minute, then discharges it back into the ocean. Scientists concluded in 1989 this was damaging a nearby kelp bed and sucking up and killing 21 to 57 tons of fish and 4 billion eggs and larvae annually. 1991 California Coastal Commission Ruling To offset the loss created by plant operation, Edison must: Build a 300-acre artificial kelp reef Restore 150-acre coastal wetland Improve the plant’s fish protection systems Explore funding a marine fish hatchery Edison agreed; fish hatchery opened last year in Carlsbad What Edison Wants Now Company says kelp damage is less than thought and that the total cost could reach well above $100 million. It wants to: Cancel 300-acre reef off San Clemente Replace it with a 16.8-acre reef Spread wetlands mitigation between San Dieguito Lagoon in San Diego County and Ormond Beach in Ventura County Monitor projects itself Estimated cost: $70 million Coastal Commission Staff Reaction Request has drawn mixed reaction Commission staff still Wants a 122-acre artificial kelp reef Wants independent project monitors Estimated cost: $78 million What Now? State Senate Natural Resources Committee will hold investigative hearing on Edison’s proposal today from 9:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. at Santa Monica Malibu School District board room, 1651 16th St., Santa Monica.

Final decision rests with the 12-member California Coastal Commission; it takes up the issue Tuesday 10/8 at the Sheraton Gateway hotel at Los Angeles International Airport, 6101 W. Century Blvd., Los Angeles Controversy’s Background Some important dates in the San Onofre story: 1973: California Coastal Commission denies construction permit for San Onofre Units II and III, sparking political criticism. 1974: Commission grants permission for reactor construction, but attaches requirements, including creation of a special panel of scientists to assess impact on the marine environment. 1983: Unit II begins operating 1984: Unit III begins operating 1989: Panel study blames nuclear plant for 60% (200-acre) reduction in area covered by kelp bed. It also concludes plant’s cooling system was sucking up and killing tons of fish, eggs and larvae each year. 1991: Coastal Commission and Edison agree on plans to offset damage. Edison will build 300-acre artificial reef, restore 150-acre coastal wetland to compensate for dead eggs and larvae and upgrade fish protection systems to reduce future fish kills. 1995: Edison seeks to cut plan, reporting kelp-bed damage is less than predicted. Among other changes, it proposes building 12-acre experimental reef in lieu of 300-acre version. It warns protection plan cost could soar to as much as $160 million. Commission staff rejects request and commission deadlocks 6-6 on Edison’s appeal, leaving 1991 requirements in place. June 1996: New panel of scientists chosen by Edison and Coastal Commission staff reviews Edison’s studies, concludes plant’s impact on kelp is less than previously believed. August 1996: Edison again attempts to roll back 1991 requirements, this time proposing 16.8-acre experimental kelp reef. Coastal Commission staff later counters with plans for 122-acre reef and other changes. Edison contests proposal. Sources: Times reports, Southern California Edison, California Coastal Commission; Researched by DEBORAH SCHOCH / Los Angeles Times