ML13253A336
| ML13253A336 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 04/06/2012 |
| From: | Balsam B A Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Susco J J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2013-0265 | |
| Download: ML13253A336 (4) | |
Text
,'From: Balsam, BrianaTo: Susco. JeremyCc: Loean, Dennis
Subject:
RE: QUERY: Columbia EFH paragraph Date: Monday, April 09, 2012 7:56:00 AMAttachments:
Chances to Columbia SEIS to document EFH and ESA Consultations.docx Jeremy,I attached what we have so far for Columbia.
Dennis may have some edits, though.BrianaFrom: Balsam, BrianaSent: Tuesday, April 03, 2012 2:59 PMTo: Logan, Dennis
Subject:
Columbia final SEIS paragraphs for EFH and ESA consultations Dennis,I put this together for the Columbia final SEIS. I realized, though, that we shouldsummarize the section 7 consultations with FWS and NMFS, also. I included paragraphs for these as well. Feel free to edit whatever you want and then pass them on to Jeremy.Briana Changes to Columbia SEIS to document completion of EFH Consultation Section 2.2.7.3 Essential Fish Habitat, Page 2-50, lines 26-30:In correspondence with the NRC. Tthe NMFS noted upper Columbia River Chinook salmon(spring-,
summer-,
and fall-runs) and coho salmon as species that have EFH (Suzumoto, 2010).A-The NRC prepared Assessment, which is enclosed as Appendix D-1 in thisSEIS, that considers impacts to these species.
A summary of EFH Consultation between theNRC and NMFS appears in Section 4.7.1., addresses additional consultation between theNIVFS and the NRC cocrnn esential habitat ne-ar the CGS site.Section 4.7.1 Aquatic Species, Page 4-10, insert after line 9:EFH Consultation The NRC prepared one document that contains both a biological assessment and an EFHAssessment (Appendix D-1 in this SEIS) to address the potential impacts to ESA-listed speciesand Federally managed species with designated EFH in the vicinity of CGS. In the EFHAssessment, the NRC considered upper Columbia River Chinook salmon (spring, summer, andfall runs) and coho salmon EFH. The NRC forwarded its draft SEIS containing the combinedbiological assessment and EFH Assessment to the NMFS by letter dated August 23, 2011(NRC 2011 a). The NRC requested that the NMFS respond in writing to the EFH Assessment within 30 days per the abbreviated EFH Consultation timing stipulations at 50 CFR600.920(h)(4).
The EFH regulations stipulate that Federal agencies must provide a detailedresponse in writing to NMFS within 30 days following the receipt of NMFS's EFH Conservation Recommendations (50 CFR 600.920(k)).
To date, the NMFS has not supplied the NRC withEFH Conservation Recommendations in response to the staffs EFH Assessment.
The NRC hascompleted its EFH Assessment and has made an effort to coordinate with the NMFS throughseveral telephone conversations concerning the proposed CGS license renewal.
At no pointduring this process has the NMFS has not indicated that it intends to formulate EFHConservation Recommendations for CGS. Thus, the NRC considers EFH Consultation concluded.
Section 7 Consultation with FWSFWS manages the recovery of the bull trout, one of the three species assessed in the biological assessment.
The NRC forwarded its draft SEIS containing a combined biological assessment and EFH assessment (Appendix D-1 in this SEIS) to the FWS on August 23, 2011 (NRC2011 b). After phone discussions with the FWS regarding the biological assessment, the NRCrevised its biological assessment conclusion of "no effect" to "may affect, but not likely toadversely affect" the bull trout in an email dated September 28, 2011 (NRC 201 ic). The FWSconcurred with this determination by letter dated October 5, 2011 (FWS 2011). This letterconcluded informal consultation between the NRC and FWS.
Section 7 Consultation with NMFSNMFS manages the recovery of the Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon and theUpper Columbia River steelhead.
The NRC forwarded its draft SEIS containing a combinedbiological assessment and EFH assessment (Appendix D-1 in this SEIS) to the NMFS onAugust 23, 2011 (NRC 201 la). In that letter, the NRC requested concurrence with its biological assessment determinations per 50 CFR 402.120).
The NMFS responded by letter datedOctober 24, 2011 (NMFS 2011). In that letter, the NMFS notified the NRC that it did not concurwith the NRC's effect determinations and directed the NRC to initiate formal section 7consultation.
The NRC replied to the NMFS by letter dated December 20, 2011 (NRC 201 1d).The NRC reiterated the fact that no available ecological studies indicate that CGS is entraining or impinging either of the two ESA-listed species and that the NRC believes that informalconsultation is the appropriate means of fulfilling NRC's obligations under the ESA for theproposed CGS license renewal.
Following the NMFS's receipt of this letter, the NRC and NMFSdiscussed the biological assessment over several telephone conversations and agreed thatinformal consultation is the appropriate path forward.
The NMFS requested additional information from the NRC on February 10, 2012 (NMFS 2012) to assist NMFS staff in reachinga conclusion for the Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon and the Upper ColumbiaRiver steelhead.
The NRC is in the process of compiling the requested information.
At this time,informal consultation with NMFS is ongoing.Additional Chapter4
References:
FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service).
2011. Letter from K.S. Berg, Manager, CentralWashington Field Office, FWS, to D. Wrona, RPB1 Chief, NRC.
Subject:
Concurrence onbiological assessment for proposed Columbia Generating Station license renewal.
October 5,2011. ADAMS No. ML11291A157.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service).
2011. Letter from W.W. Stelle, .Northwest RegionalAdministrator, NMFS to D. Wrona, RBP2 Chief, NRC.
Subject:
Letter of non-concurrence onNRC's proposed license renewal for Energy Northwest's Columbia Generating Station.
October24, 2011. ADAMS No. ML11307A393.
NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service).
2012. E-mail from R. Domingue, Hydropower
- Division, NMFS, to D. Doyle, Project Manager, NRC.
Subject:
Columbia Generating Stationadditional information request.
February 10, 2012. ADAMS No. ML12044A329.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission).
201 Ia. Letter from D. Wrona, RPB2 Chief, NRC,to R. Domingue, Hydropower
- Division, NMFS.
Subject:
Biological Assessment for informalsection 7 consultation and request to initiate abbreviated EFH Consultation for license renewalof Columbia Generating Station.
August 23, 2011. ADAMS No. ML11165A030.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission).
2011 b. Letter from D. Wrona, RPB2 Chief, NRC,to R. Thorson, Pacific Regional
- Director, FWS.
Subject:
Biological Assessment for informal section 7 consultation related to the license renewal of Columbia Generating Station.
August 23,2011. ADAMS No. ML11161AO02.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission).
2011 c. E-mail from D. Logan, Ecologist, NRC, toL. Gauthier, FWS.
Subject:
Revised biological assessment conclusion for bull trout in ColumbiaGenerating Station section 7 consultation with FWS. September 29, 2011. ADAMS No.ML11272A066.
NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission).
201 Ild. Letter from D. Wrona, RBP2 Chief, NRC,to W.W. Stelle, Northwest Regional Administrator, NMFS.
Subject:
Response to letter of non-concurrence on biological assessment for proposed license renewal of Columbia Generating Station.
December 20, 2011. ADAMS No. ML11335A127