ML20054L855
| ML20054L855 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Skagit |
| Issue date: | 06/28/1982 |
| From: | Grandstaff M WASHINGTON, STATE OF |
| To: | Fitch W WASHINGTON, STATE OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8207090011 | |
| Download: ML20054L855 (2) | |
Text
m
/
.?.
?/
2, JOHN 51't LLMAN b
'5 IRAhK LoCKARD Govemor Drector STATE (F WASHINGION 7
. DEPARTMENT OF GAME
- gp3, Obnpia. tVastwyton 98504 (XWy 751-5700 bOONorth Capitol tVay, GI-II e
e June 28, 1982 Mr. William L.
Fitch Washington Energy Pacility Site Evaluation Council 4224 Sixth Avenue S.E.,
Bldg. Il Olympia, Washington 98504
, DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT:
Skagit/Ilanford Nuclear Project, Units 1 and 2, Benton County
Dear Mr. Fitch:
Your document has been reviewed by our staff as requested; comments follow.
In general, potential impacts to wildlife appear to be adequately discussed.
Ilowever, proposed measures to mitigate wildlife impacts are lacking.
For example, on page 4-68, paragraph 1, you state,
...the adverse impacts of constructing and operating the S/IINP on the biological communities of the site and vicinity will be minor and any detrimental effects that might occur can be easily mitigated."
No mitigative measures for wildlife are proposed.
Approximately 1,200 acres of wildlife habitat would be impacted at the construction site.
This EIS should discuss ways that detrimental impacts can be avoided or mitigated.
These could conceivably include habitat replacement or improvement.
Similarly, on page 4-68, last paragraph,.you state,
... impacts of constructing and utilizing these corridors on the biological communities will be minor, any detrimental effects will be temporary, and that no mitigative measures are'necessary."
We feel that any noted impacts to habitat should be mitigated.
In the discussion of rare or endangered fish which may be present at the site, it would be appropriate to mention the sandroller (Percopsis transmontana), which is considered a species of concern by the Washington Department of Game, Nongame Wildlife Program.
On page 4-67, paragraph 6, you state, " Bird species are expected to find suitable habitat in areas adjacent to construction."
It should be noted that adjacent habitats are assumed to be at carrying capacity and cannot support additional animals.
In general, when wildlife habitat is removed, wildlife will be lost.
Coo 3 8207090011 820628 PDR ADOCK 05000S22 D
PDR N
g
.o 4
Mr. William L.
Fitch June 28, 1982 Page Two We appreciate the fact that a pipeline route vill be selected so that large trees at the old Hanford town site will not be affected.
This is important, as eagle perch sites along the Columbia River are limited.
In the discussion of construction monitoring, page 5-11, terrestrial monitoring is only proposed in " unique areas."
This ignores wildlife impacts on the 1,200 acres at the construction site.
Because wild-life impacts need to be mitigated, some type of pre-and post-construction monitoring would 'seem appropriate.
Thank you for the opportunity Ao review this document.
We hope you find our comments helpful.
Sincerely, TIIE DEPARTMENT OF GAME m$Y Mark II. Grandstaff, Applied Ecologist Environmental Affairs Program liabitat Management Division MIIG:cv cc:
Agencies Region Director, Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.
C.
20555
~
[
if fn,_
.swa-
_ -QW 1, :
9 John Spellman, Governor
%.'\\.:'-#1'5
[p~,".'?
State of Washington
^ '
e I',i HEtp y%
PC,* cDiw J'
n DEPARTMENT OF GAME i
600 North Capitol Way, GJ 11. Olympia, WA 98504 If!1562-5SM
\\..,a/Nb c 2 0 3.5 s..... -
u v / :__
g, i
6' i
i t.
l Director, Division of Licensing L
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
[
Washington, D.
C.
20555 i
t
?
I i
l r-I e. S Y-AW I
.
- m, AW+ w=g-e'.i q q Sv
- ((M N
T%
[*T NMF"MYY@WW%
fY.' SM U I,,TY"dY I
he M+ =
-r-P^'tM l
i I