ML13253A296
| ML13253A296 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Columbia  |
| Issue date: | 07/05/2011 |
| From: | Krieg R Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory |
| To: | Dan Doyle, Briana Grange, Logan D Division of License Renewal |
| References | |
| FOIA/PA-2013-0265 | |
| Download: ML13253A296 (3) | |
Text
Craver, Patti From:
Krieg, Rebekah <rebekah.krieg@pnnl.gov>
Sent:
Tuesday, July 05, 2011 4:38 PM To:
Doyle, Daniel; Grange, Briana; Logan, Dennis Cc:
Mcdowell, Bruce K
Subject:
RE: NRC BA/EFH assessment for Columbia Generating Station license renewal review Sorry for the last minute. Our email has been out until just about 30 minutes ago. We did not look at coho under ESA. They are not listed. We only looked at them for the EFH (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
Becky Original Message -----
From: Doyle, Daniel [1]
Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 11:53 AM To: Balsam, Briana; Logan, Dennis; Krieg, Rebekah Cc: Mcdowell, Bruce K
Subject:
RE: NRC BA/EFH assessment for Columbia Generating Station license renewal review You're correct, Briana... this hasn't been issued yet so he hasn't seen it. Ok, I will let him know we included the effects on coho salmon for both ESA and Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Dan Original Message -----
From: Balsam, Briana Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 2:11 PM To: Logan, Dennis; Doyle, Daniel; Krieg, Rebekah Cc: Mcdowell, Bruce K
Subject:
RE: NRC BA/EFH assessment for Columbia Generating Station license renewal review Dennis -- The email Dan forwarded was just an email to confirm that our species list is up-to-date since the ESA regs require use to check with FWS or NMFS if we don't start the BA within 90 days or complete it within 180 days. I had made the suggestion that we do this because us following the timelines set forth in the regulations on our end will give us more ability to expect FWS and NMFS to uphold the timelines on their end.
It's also a good way to show FWS and NMFS that we know the process and are serious about the consultation. I don't think the Columbia BA/EFH assessment has actually been issued yet, though.
Dan -- I think you are good to respond that we have considered the coho salmon under both the ESA and Magnuson-Stevens Act in the BA/EFH assessment.
Briana From: Logan, Dennis Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 12:52 PM To: Doyle, Daniel; Krieg, Rebekah Cc: Mcdowell, Bruce K; Balsam, Briana
Subject:
RE: NRC BA/EFH assessment for Columbia Generating Station license renewal review
- Dan,
I am not exactly sure what he means. We did an EFH assessment Coho salmon, so he already has what he needs "to evaluate the project's effects on essential fish habitat." My guess is that he just had not finished reading the document when he wrote the note.
Dennis From: Doyle, Daniel Sent: Friday, July 01, 2011 11:58 AM To: Logan, Dennis; Krieg, Rebekah Cc: Mcdowell, Bruce K; Balsam, Briana
Subject:
FW: NRC BA/EFH assessment for Columbia Generating Station license renewal review Dennis and Becky, I checked with Rich Domingue from NMFS to make sure the species list for Columbia is still accurate.
He said that it was and added, "Please do not overlook potential project effects on coho salmon as we will use your BA to evaluate the project's effects on essential fish habitat as well as ESA needs."
I plan to reply to him that we have considered the potential effects on coho salmon for the purposes of EFH and ESA review.
Does that sound okay to you? Just checking...
Dan Doyle Project Manager Division of License Renewal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission daniel.doyle@nrc.gov (301) 415-3748 From: Richard Domingue [2]
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 4:33 PM To: Doyle, Daniel
Subject:
Re: NRC BA/EFH assessment for Columbia Generating Station license renewal review Yes. The species list provided last June remains accurate. Please do not overlook potential project effects on coho salmon as we will use your BA to evaluate the project's effects on essential fish habitat as well as ESA needs. Thank you.
On 6/23/2011 7:51 AM, Doyle, Daniel wrote:
- Rich, Can you please confirm if the list of species and habitats in your June 23, 2010, letter (attached) is still accurate? We expect to publish the draft EIS in August 2011. It will include a combined biological assessment and EFH Assessment.
- Thanks, Dan Doyle Project Manager Division of License Renewal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2
daniel.doyle@nrc.gov<mailto:daniel.doyle@nrc.gov>
(301) 415-3748 From: Richard Domingue [3]
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 3:59 PM To: Doyle, Daniel
Subject:
Re: NRC BA/EFH assessment for Columbia Generating Station license renewal review The species list included in the June 23, 2010 remain the appropriate species for this c6nsultation. Your schedule is fine with us. Thanks.
On 12/17/2010 12:23 PM, Doyle, Daniel wrote:
- Rich, Thanks for your time on the phone this afternoon. As I said explained in the call, I am al project manager at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission coordinating the environmental review for the Columbia Generating Station license renewal application.
The purpose of this e-mail is to request an extension for the combined BA/EFH assessment for the species and habitats identified in the letter from your office to the NRC dated June 23, 2010 (attached).
We expect to publish our supplementary environmental impact statement in May 2011. The combined BA/EFH assessment will be included as an appendix to that report. The assessment will contain the staffs analysis of the potential impact to those species by the license renewal of Columbia Generating Station.
The website below contains more information about the Columbia Generating Station license renewal review:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/columbia.html If you have any questions about this review, please feel free to contact me or the lead aquatic reviewer, Rebekah Krieg (509-371-7155 or rebekah.krieg@pnl.gov<mailto: rebekah. krieg@pnl.gov>).
Sincerely, Dan Doyle Project Manager Division of License Renewal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission daniel.doyle@nrc.gov<mailto:daniel.doyle@nrc.gov>
(301) 415-3748 3