ML13266A029
| ML13266A029 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hatch  |
| Issue date: | 09/20/2013 |
| From: | Martinez G US Dept of Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service |
| To: | Logan D Division of License Renewal |
| References | |
| Download: ML13266A029 (3) | |
Text
1 NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From:
Logan, Dennis Sent:
Friday, September 20, 2013 9:58 AM To:
Martinez, Gail Cc:
Strant Colwell; Wrona, David
Subject:
RE: Hatch Nuclear Plant
- Gail, We consult with many different offices of NMFS and FWS and some require some require jeopardy statements in our biological assessments and others do not. Please change our conclusion to the following:
The staff concludes that the present and future operation of HNP may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Altamaha spinymussel and that the present and future operation of HNP would have no effect on Altamaha spinymussel critical habitat.
We have come to this conclusion because the only effects of HNP operation under the proposed license amendment on the Altamaha spinymussel population might be through possible secondary effects on unknown host fish species, and any such effects would be undetectable or not measureable if they might occur. Also, effects of HNP operation under the proposed license amendment would not affect critical habitat, which is not designated in the river reach near the plant site.
The NRC staff requests the Services concurrence with this finding.
Thank you.
Dennis Logan From: Martinez, Gail [1]
Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2013 5:37 PM To: Logan, Dennis Cc: Strant Colwell
Subject:
Hatch Nuclear Plant Hi Dennis, I am working on a response to the letter dated August 7, 2013 in which the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requests concurrence for an effects determination of the Hatch Nuclear Plant (HNP) on the federally-listed endangered species Altamaha spinymussel.
In this letter, the NRC "requests concurrence with its determination that HNP may effect, but is not likely to jeopardize, the continued existence of Altamaha spinymussel and will have no effect on its designated critical habitat".
When making a Section 7 finding for proposed or listed species and proposed or designated critical habitat, the following effects determinations may be made if the biological assessment or other information indicates that the action has no likelihood of adverse effect (including evaluation of effects that may be beneficial, insignificant, or discountable):
2 "No effect" means there will be no impacts, positive or negative, to listed or proposed resources.
Generally, this means no listed resources will be exposed to action and its environmental consequences.
Concurrence from the Service is not required.
"May affect, but not likely to adversely affect" means that all effects are beneficial, insignificant, or discountable. Beneficial effects have contemporaneous positive effects without any adverse effects to the species or habitat. Insignificant effects relate to the size of the impact and include those effects that are undetectable, not measurable, or cannot be evaluated. Discountable effects are those extremely unlikely to occur. These determinations require written concurrence from the Service.
"May affect, and is likely to adversely affect" means that listed resources are likely to be exposed to the action or its environmental consequences and will respond in a negative manner to the exposure.
This determination will require formal consultation.
The formal consultation process will result in a biological opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reaching either a jeopardy or no jeopardy to listed species (or adverse or no adverse modification of critical habitat) finding.
No formal consultation is required if the action agency finds, with the Services written concurrence that the proposed action "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" listed species or critical habitat. This finding can be made only if ALL of the reasonably expected effects of the proposed action will be beneficial, insignificant, or discountable. The action agency must request concurrence, in writing, from the Service for this finding.
Please review your effects determination and re-submit your request for concurrence. Feel free to call with any questions and/or concerns.
Thank you, Gail Martinez Gail Martinez U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Ecological Services - Coastal Georgia Sub Office 4980 Wildlife Drive, NE Townsend, GA 31331 (912) 832 8739 ext. 7 gail_martinez@fws.gov
Hearing Identifier:
NRR_PMDA Email Number:
841 Mail Envelope Properties (Dennis.Logan@nrc.gov20130920095700)
Subject:
RE: Hatch Nuclear Plant Sent Date:
9/20/2013 9:57:39 AM Received Date:
9/20/2013 9:57:00 AM From:
Logan, Dennis Created By:
Dennis.Logan@nrc.gov Recipients:
"Strant Colwell" <Strant_Colwell@fws.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Wrona, David" <David.Wrona@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None "Martinez, Gail" <gail_martinez@fws.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office:
Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 4324 9/20/2013 9:57:00 AM Options Priority:
Standard Return Notification:
No Reply Requested:
No Sensitivity:
Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received: