ML13253A273

Email from D. Logan, NRR to R. Krieg, Pnl FW: Revised Biological Assessment Conclusion for Bull Trout in Columbia Generating Station Section 7 Consultation with Fws

ML13253A273
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	10/12/2011
From:	Logan D T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Krieg R H Battelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
References
FOIA/PA-2013-0265
Download: ML13253A273 (3)

Text

Craver, PattiFrom: Logan, DennisSent: Thursday, October 13, 2011 9:36 AMTo: Krieg, RebekahCc: Doyle, Daniel

Subject:

FW: FW: Revised biological assessment conclusion for bull trout in Columbia Generating Station Section 7 consultation with FWS. NRC Docket 050-00397 Becky,No need to respond to Dan. He and I talked this morning and went over what must be done. Thank you againfor all your efforts on this project.DennisFrom: Doyle, DanielSent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 5:08 PMTo: Logan, Dennis; Krieg, Rebekah

Subject:

RE: FW: Revised biological assessment conclusion for bull trout in Columbia Generating Station Section 7consultation with FWS. NRC Docket 050-00397 Dennis and Becky,Attached is the response from USFWS which I received today. They concur with our revised finding andinclude some language about conditions under which the project should be reanalyzed or consultation shouldbe re-initiated.

Can you send Mr. Gauthier a brief email acknowledging the letter or should I do it?Is there anything else we should do about this as we move into the final SEIS?Thanks,Dan DoyleProject ManagerDivision of License RenewalU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission daniel.doyle@nrc.gov (301) 415-3748From: LukeGauthier@fws.gov

[1]

Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 10:53 AMTo: Logan, DennisCc: Doyle, Daniel

Subject:

Re: FW: Revised biological assessment conclusion for bull trout in Columbia Generating Station Section 7consultation with FWS. NRC Docket 050-00397 Dr. Logan,Thank you for sending this revision.

I will review the information and send you a response as soon as possible.

1r Luke S. GauthierUSFWS -Central Washington Field Office215 Melody Lane, Suite 119Wenatchee, WA 98801509.665.3508 x24 (tel)509.665.3509 (fax)www.fws.gov/wafwo "Logan, Dennis" <Dennis.Logan@nrc.gov>

To 'LukeGauthier@fws.gov

<Luke_Gauthier@fws.gov>

cc09/29/2011 04:41 AM Subject FW: Revised biological assessment conclusion for bull trout in Columbia Generating Station Section 7 consultation with FWS. NRC Docket 050-00397 From: Logan, DennisSent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 5:29 PMTo: luke.gauthier@fws.gov Cc: Imboden, Andy; Doyle, Daniel; Balsam, Briana; Krieg, Rebekah; NRR-PMDA-ECapture Resource

Subject:

Revised biological assessment conclusion for bull trout in Columbia Generating Station Section 7 consultation with FWS.NRC Docket 050-00397

Dear Mr. Gauthier:

The NRC staffs August 2011 biological assessment concluded that the continued operation of the Columbia Generating Station (CGS)would have no effect on the bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus).

After further consideration,

however, the NRC staff has revised itsconclusion and now believes that operation of the CGS is not likely to adversely affect bull trout. The following discussion summarizes the findings of the biological assessment and presents the justification for the revised conclusion.

Proposed ActionThe NRC's Federal action is the decision whether to renew the CGS operating license for an additional 20 years.CGS Water Withdrawal and Discharge SummaryIn generating electricity, CGS produces heat, which is transferred to the atmosphere through evaporation using six mechanical draftcooling towers. CGS also routinely discharges a portion of cooling water to the Columbia River. The total water losses are replacedby withdrawal from the Columbia River (replacement water is called make-up water). During normal operating

periods, the averagemakeup-water withdrawal is about 17,000 gpm (1.1 m3/s). The plant withdraws water about 300 ft (91 m) from the shoreline through two intake screens that have an outer and inner perforated pipe sleeve to exclude adult fish. The outer sleeve has a 42-in.(107-cm)

-diameter sleeve with 3/8-in. (9.5-mm)-diameter holes (composing 40 percent of the surface area). The inner sleeve has a36-in. (91-cm)-diameter sleeve with 3/4-in. (19-mm)-diameter holes (composing 7 percent of the surface area). For the discharge, the State of Washington authorizes discharge in accordance with the special and general conditions of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit No. WA-002515-1.

Assessment of Impacts to Bull TroutThe FWS listed bull trout as threatened throughout their range in 1999. The CGS's action is the Hanford Reach, which lies within theColumbia River Distinct Population segment of bull trout. The FWS considers the Hanford Reach of the mainstem Columbia River tobe a potential migratory corridor for bull trout. The Mainstem Upper Columbia River critical habitat unit (CHU) provides connectivity to the Mainstem Lower Columbia River CHUs and to 13 additional CHUs. This critical habitat is the main foraging, migration, andoverwintering (FMO) habitat for the Entiat River core area and provides connectivity between several other core areas or criticalhabitat units. The FWS's Bull Trout Final Critical Habitat Justification indicates that bull trout reside year-round in certain areas ofthe mainstem of the Columbia River as either sub-adults or adults and that spawning adults may also use the mainstem of theColumbia River for up to 9 months.Observation of bull trout in the Hanford Reach is rare, and the species may seldom use this migratory corridor.

Resource scientists 2

at DOE's Hanford Site have characterized the use of the Hanford Reach by bull trout as transient.

The FWS Bull Trout Final CriticalHabitat Justification indicated that the accounts of bull trout in the Hanford Reach are "anecdotal" and are "likely individuals moveddownstream during the spring freshet.

Furthermore, the habitat and water temperatures in the Hanford Reach are not ideal forspawning, and the NRC did not identify any reports of spawning activity by bull trout in the vicinity of the CGS during its review forthe proposed CGS license renewal.The lack of spawning in the Hanford Reach means that there is no potential for young bull trout or bull trout eggs to be entrained orimpinged at the CGS site. Furthermore, entrainment studies conducted in 1979-1980 and 1985 did not collect any life stage of bulltrout. Impingement studies conducted over the same period did not observe any fish impinged on the intake screens.

Healthy adultbull trout that commonly inhabit rivers with water velocities above 4 fps (1.2 m/s) would not be susceptible to impingement with athrough-screen velocity of 0.5 fps (15 cm/s).Regarding the heated effluent, bull trout actively select for cooler water, thus there would be little potential for them to be affectedby the thermal or chemical discharge from the CGS plant. The thermal effluent from the blowdown discharge during the spring is along, narrow plume, comprising approximately one percent of the width of the river, and bull trout would likely avoid it whilemigrating or foraging.

Conclusion Because the Hanford Reach of the river is neither spawning nor rearing habitat for bull trout and because bull trout are so rare inthis area, the NRC staff's biological assessment concluded that the continued operation of CGS would have no effect on the bulltrout. After further consideration,

however, the NRC staff now believes that because the of the age of entrainment andimpingement studies and the consideration that lack of bull trout in those samples would not absolutely preclude a take of bull troutin the future, its conclusion should be more protective and conservative.

Therefore, the NRC staff revises its conclusion and nowbelieves that operation of the CGS is not likely to adversely affect bull trout.Please contact me if you have any further questions, Sincerely, Dennis Logan, Ph.D.Ecologist U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North, Mail Stop 0-11FI11555 Rockville PikeRockville, MD 20852-2738 Phone: 301.415.0490 Fax: 301.415.2002 3