ML071450150

Responses A39 - A45 and A48 - A50 to Additional Information Needs Identified During Audit of NRC Request for Additional Information Related to License Renewal Application

ML071450150
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	05/09/2007
From:	Garrett T Wolf Creek
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
ET 07-0018
Download: ML071450150 (94)

Text

A39 INTEROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION S,46878 TO: J. D. Weeks (WC-OP) 93 FROM: E. K. Brown (WC-SYS) $DATE:. March 4,1993

SUBJECT:

Circulating Water Pump and Traveling Water Screen Operational Flexibility Purpose.The function of this letter is to transmit information that can be used to provide more flexibility in Circulating Water Pump (CWP) and Traveling Water Screen (TWS) operations.

Summary: A CWP can be operated with only one TWS in operation (other TWS in bay blocked for maintenance) provided the requirements stated in this letter have been met.Requirements:

1) TWS is in best possible condition with normal PM. recently accomplished.

2) Normal lake water levil, 1987' or greater.3) No other operating pumps in bay prior to starting CWP.4) Only one service water pump (full or low flow) may be operated in the bay with one operating TWS and only after CWP is in operation.

5) TWS L. slow speed (at minimum) prior to starting CWP.6) Operations personnel shall investigate lake conditions and monitor the equipment during startup.7) TWS design dP of 5 feet of water shall not be exceeded.8) No restrictions or requirements are being placed on the Fire Pumps.Discussion:.

An investigation was conducted to determine if systems.operations (Circ Water, Service Water, Fire Protection) could be performed with only one TWS in operation.

It was concluded that design documentation neither specified nor contained information to support operation of all pumps in a bay with flow passing through only one TWS."SAFETYI BE WISE, DON'T COMPROMISE" March 4, 1993 The problem was presented to the manufacturer, Envirex Inc. After review of design and operation information the manufacturer believe* the necessary flow can be'passed through one TWS. The considerations taken into account are expected flow rate at low lake level; the limiting condition for the TWS and the operating pumps. Based nn this information the requirements and recommendations of this letter were developed.

Risks and Benefits: There are certain isks thatoccur during the performance of this evolution.

These risks and consequences are those normally associated with the TWSs and the CWPs. Increased probability of equipment damage is the risk of not following the requirements and recommendations as explained.

A power reduction or plant trip could be the consequence.

The benefit of operating the IWSs and CWPs in the manner discussed is improved flexibility.

Maintenance could be performed any time of the year without affecting power production because of reduced CW syctem flow rate. Equipment and system reliability is therefore enbanced.,TJ.Recommendations:

1) Only operate in this manner when absolutely necessary due to equipment failures or maintenance.2) Strictly adhere to the requirements set forth in the summary section.3) Change the applicable equipment and system operating procedures to provide the requirements and guidance as indicated in this letter.Edwin K. Brown Systems Engineer cc: 0. L. M4jnard WC-AD D. L. Fehr WC-TR C. W. Fowler WC-MD C. M. Sprout WC-SYS J. D. Stamtur WC-PD'E L. W. Helloway WC-SYS $.'\D. Jacobs WC-MA A40 H U.I 0 D C)C)C)POMR API 15A-003-05, REV. 2* RECORD SU 1

• AFFECTED RECORD n i\96 05 152 IPPLEMENTAUCORRECTION SHEET Q'ffi.qýFile No., I M1 10" , 1033 Record Title/Record PIR 96-1917 Numbers 2. DESCRIPTION OF DATA BEING CHANGED, AMENDED, ETC.Add an independent review of PIR by a person who has received root cause training.3. REASON FOR BUPPLENENT OR CORRECTION The person who perform the independent review of this PIR was not trained in root cause analysis.

This was identified during Audit K469.4q APPROVAL SIGNATURES.

THESE CHANGES HAVE RECEIVED THE APPROPRIATE REVIEW ANDý APPROVALS BY THE ORIGINATING ORGANXZATION.

Originatot AIproval Signature Additional Signature(s) (if required)Date Date Does this Supplemental/Correction Sheet affect the Code QA Program? No[46Ye-](If yes, complete the following with the appropriate signatures.)

Manager Maintenance Supervisor Quality Control (QC inspections) or Supervisor Quality Evaluations (Surveillances)

ANI1/ANI/AI Date Date Date 7 E)N, 0 FORM APF 28A-001-01.

Rev. 1 File K01-033 PIR 96-1917 PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT REQUEST PAGEl_ of .0 INITIATION j A. Describe the Problem. Concern. Condition, or Recommendation Consider:

1) consequences or potential consequences

2) generic implications O V G A 4 3) reference documents 4) operability/reportability This PIR is being initiated to re-open the issue addressed by PIR 96-0313. 4 PIR 96-0313 indicated: "This PIR is being written because while working on B Traveling screen with a Local Co was vered that the screen could run with the handswitch in the off position This [putting the handswitch in the o on as o to having the supply breaker opened] has been a standard practice for mech. maintenance for the life of th I caused great damage to the screen and to ;he personal [sic] that were working on the screen ff it started while' wont screen." PIR 96-0313 was not classified as significant (that error is the subj R 96-16 therefore did not receive the level of attention that it should have. Although not specifically stated in it is w known that the traveling screen did start during the maintenance work. Because of the significance of rsonnel injury and clearance order not providing the intended safety function), a formal Root Cause Analys'Rather than re-open PIR 96-0313, this new PIR has d ine why the possibility of the screens starting was not recognized during the processing of Clearance Or .At this time, it is not clear if this was due to inadequate information on drawings reviewed by Clearan by an error in reading appropriate drawings.In any event, this PIR should be classifi ant formal root cause analysis performed to determine the scope, cause and appropriate preventative action..C. Initiator/Mall Stop: D. Peavler (CC-PIA) Date: 7/30/96 Phone: 4420

D H 0 U.SCREENING REVIEW A. Operability Potentially Affected?0 Yes -Shift Supervisor contacted:

DatelTime B. Potentially Reportable

? 0 Yes -RER #: C. Significant?

0 Yes -Category: D. Priority:

A.7 L. Problem? 0 Yes F. Reactivity Control Problem? 03 Yes G. Radiological Occurrence?

0 Yes IH Generic Implications?

0 Yes, See Comments L Additional Action Recommended?

0 Yes Comments: 0 No* No O No* No* No* No 0 No o No- PIRiCosed**

J. Recommended Responsible Manager: Chris Younle K. Screening Review Performed by: D. Peavler RESBL IBLE MANAGER REVIEW A. Additional Action? 0 Yes Date: _JIIDj__ Phone: _42A-.0 No -PIR Closed**Comments: B. Assigned to: C. Responsible Manager: J 1.. --e. Date: Phone: q D. Due Date*: 7130196*Due date is for RCA/CA Plan if PIR is significant and for scheduled closure if non-significant.

Distribution:

Originator:

Quality Evaluations (SE-QE), Training (TR-TR) -Significant PIRs Only,** Nuclear Safety Engineering (SE-NSE), Plant Trending & Evaluation (SE-PTE) -Closed PIRs Only Others

I'H 1~'7)Fr'0 C)a.FORM AP" 22A.001.4 Rev. I File K0_1-__ __PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT REQUEST PIR 96-1917 PAGE 5 of 1 Root Cause Analysis & Corrective Action Plan (for Significant PIRs)A. ROOT CAUSE ANALYSIS [lnvestifatlon Results. Root Causefs), and Contributlng Factors]Pig 96-1917 was written to address the safety concerns surrounding the operation of the "B" Circulating Water Traveling Screen during a maintenance evolution.

The Pig states that "it is now known that the traveling screen did start during the maintenance work". The PIg goes on to state that this was a "near miss -personnel injuy and clearance order [did]not provide the intended safety function".

Discussion with the Maintenance mechanic who was at the worksite reveals this is not entirely accurate. (See attached e-mail from R. Dorpinghaus dated 8/29/96 for a complete description of events.) The screen was started using the Local Control aft completion of the screen overhaul work The screen would not stop once it was started.Review of the Screen Wash System Function Description, FD-SW-01-WC Rev. 5, and the applicable electrical prints E-1005-SWO1 and E-1005-SW09 (print review was performed with the assistance of an electrician and I&C technician) reveal the screen will not automatically start when the local handswitch (1HSSW0033) is in the OFF position.

Once placed in a running mode (e.g.: slow or fast), the screen will not stop if the screen receives an automatic actuation.

It is entirely possible that the screen received an automatic actuation during the work since this was during the icing event and a differential bay level-could have existed that caused an automatic actuation.

Automatic actuations can also occur due to a timing mechanism in the circuit.The root cause is therefore determined to be that all involved work parties (Maintenance and Operations) were unaware that once a screen is started, It may not stop If the screen receives an automatic actuation.

B. CORRECTIVE ACTIN PLAN TO PREVENT RECU MNE Include glnned completion dates)Once the Operations Clearance Order Group became aware of this occurrence, it was decided all future Clearance Orders for traveling screens would have the feeder breaker opened to ensure undesired screen operation would not occur. To verify this, an existing Clearance Order on the traveling screens was reviewed (96-1250-SW).

This Clearance Order was found to have both the local handswitch and feder breaker tagged in the OFF position.

To reinforce this good safety practice, this PIR is placed in Operatons required reading (OP 960000071).

This PiR is forwarded to Mechanical Maintenance and IPS Tiger Team with the recommendation to include this Pig in their required reading to help ensure all appropriate personnel understand traveling screen operation.

The following is noted: Root cause investigation for this Plk was extremely difficult since the originating Pik 96-0313 and its evaluation

/ closure, contained no references to the work packages, clearance order or drawings which were performed or evaluated.

Pik 96-1917 initiation also did not provide any definitive documentation of the maintenance work which was performed.

A PIR will be issued by 9/6/96 to address the need for thorough documentation and recommend changes to the PIk form to ensure all refrences are documented.

Operations was not included in the investigation of PIRs 96-0313 (written on 2/5/96 to originally document the problem and closed on 6/12/96).

The PIR does not mention any discussion with Operations personnel, nor is Operations or Maintenance placed on distribution.

PT&E review of PIk 96.0313 resulted in their issuing PiR 96-1681. Again, no mention of any discussions with Operations personnel is given. Through this documentation review, it is only evident that Operations became aware of this issue on 7/30/96 when PT&E issued PIR 96-1917. A Pik will be issued by 9/6/96 to document this and develop a recommendation to enhance the PIk form to record those groups contacted.

This will help ensure needed t a communication takes plac.Distribution:

Originator.

D. Peavler (CC-PIA)Others: PT&E (SE-PA). T. Hood (CC-DES).

P. Martin (OB-IPS).

R Miller fWC-MA). K. Hargis (OB-OP) rt"m~lm a] 92A.J-Ml Dna 4=I GA4 JIM4 PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT REQUEST PER 9841917 PAGE 0fot0 Root Cause Analysis & Corrective Action Plan (for Significant PIRs)PIR 96-1681 was initiated on 6n27/96 and recognized the need to "have the issue screened as significant, and insure a formal Root Cause Analysis is performedL" PJR 96-1681 was screened as non-significat.

It wasn't until 7/30/96 that Significant PIR 96-1917 was issued; thereby ensuring a formal root cause analysis would be performed on this apparent safety issue. A PIR will be issued by 9/6/96 to address this delay in evaluating a safety issue.PIivqtCrpltc')"b t- C-oQI7-c 9 Or Investigated by: Ken Hall._..s Independent Reviewer:.

Responsible Manager Approval: Date: 8/30/96 pbte: Phone: 8709 ___Phone: ::2 z 2 Date: IXaywL Distribution:

Originator:

D. Peavler (CC-PTA)Others: PTE (SE-f!M T. Hood LCC-DES).

P. Martin (OB-PS. .Miller (WC-MA) K Har's (OB-OP)

!Z,4 ý-l , 1-7 PIR 96-1917 Higr~cfl~, saindeandpece Is pfto , o Isolute"E scree screen.acig ou severe " atadentc kirc wate position.neIM1*mU WMechardcs discoverh 6 awing scraen will I rI mD Wflnmen h alW Isplaced In'OFF.-uimwefve ao PIft do tnot provid detaihed doowrnentation of how Otis iscouw was Media.Madmics urwAws #0 the screens, once slarled, will not knnndM* stop if an autornew slart SOW Is received.Notes: 1. It is assumed that this is the applicable Local Control. Investigation is unable to determine exactly what Work Package Task was performed, and what LC 96-069 was used for (Reason block on Clearance form was not completed.)

PIR 96-4917 2/5/96 6/12/96_______ PIR 96-0l3written&

assigned to Design Engr.PIR 9840313 eyatuoon ComVted by Design Engr.Evaluation states screen opered as'desgned and ntended".PIR ev don Is Prot dekmt.r switch is "ON-OFF-AUTO" type. The localmth/

rioted placetio antatesonfd switch Is AUTO-OFF-SLOWN-FAST".

I bus Drwnsad hwxndst nuwJms w.e not speoffid In PIR evmualon.6/27/96 7/30/96 7/31/96 PIR 96-1681 wrtten by PT&E doumiennbg that PIR 96.0313 should have been screened as signifcant.

PIR 96-1681 recogn need to him PER 9&-1681 screened as ain not eim wmaken tperiba homwe, no adions Wmke to parkm root cause analys uisl PIR 96-1917 Issues on 7/3096.PIR 96.19t7 wlttten by PT&E SOgifcait PER 96-1917 _ _____Wftte by PT8E sigifcan.

No Indicatio on FIRWta Opefations or Mmktenance wer Informed of Issue weept twoug"oshmc Of PER 96-1 91 7on 7/30196.SUITS Olý PIR 96-1917 8/30196

~MP" c9 -t17/7 Hall Kenneth W-- From: Hargis Kenneth E o To: Hall Kenneth W

Subject:

FW: CIRC. WATER SCREEN Date: Thursday, August 29, 1996 2:50PM fyi J)From: Dorpinghaus Ron H To: Hargis Kenneth E Cc: Nelson Kevin E

Subject:

CIRC. WATER SCREEN Date: Thursday, August 29, 1996 2:10PM After the completion of overhaul work on "B" screen, and prior to turning it back to OP'S, wewere starting to perform the required 2hr. run as stated in the tech. manual.After completion of hanging a local control, which is how we had until this time done business, we proceeded to run the screen in the slow speed.After several revolutions we tried to change to fast speed, however the speed would not change. We tried to change speed numerous times with no success, we then tried to stop the screen and once again we did not have any success in controlling the screen. The site watch was then asked for assistance, whose efforts were also in vain. The site watch was then requested to pull the breaker at the panel,this was the only way to stop the screen. At this time we called a stop to all work activities.involving this screen,reported the problems to the Control Room. The SS called out the Electricians who started troubleshooting activities.

The exact results of this Troubleshooting can best be answered by the Electricians.

I hope this satisfies your questions, if not please let me know.Page 1 0 FORM APF 23A.001.0.

Rev. I Rio K0O1.62 PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT REQUEST Corrective Actions Taken PAGE I of ILL*(for Significant PIRs)A. CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN rIdentify all documents created or revised1 PIR 96-1917 was written to address the safety concerns surrounding the operation of the B' Circulating Water Traveling Screen during a maintenance evolution.

The PIR stated that "it is now known that the traveling screen did start during the maintenance work'. The PIR went on to state that this was a "near miss -personnel Injury and clearance order [didjnot provide the intended safety function'.

Investigation revealed the screen was started using the Local Control after completion of the screen overhaul work The screen would not stop once it was started. The root cause of the problem was determined to be that all involved work parties (Maintenance and Operations) were unaware that once a screen is started, it may not stop if the screen receives an automatic actuation.

Corrective actions taken Include the following:

Once the Operations Clearance Order Group became aware of this occurrence, it was decided all future Clearance Orders for traveling screens would have the feeder breaker opened to ensure undesired screen operation would not occur. To verify this decision is Implemented, an existing Clearance Order on the traveling screens was reviewed (96-1250-SW).

This Clearance Order was found to have both the local handswitch and feeder breaker tagged In the OFF position.& PIR 96-1917 was placed in Operations required reading (OP 960000071).

This was done to reinforce the practice of opening the screen feeder breaker when performing screen maintenance, and to inform personnel about screen operation.

This PIR was forwarded to Mechanical Maintenance and IPS for suggested inclusion in their required reading.0 PIR 96-2164 was written documenting that a 4 week delay occurred between the time a personnel safety issue was recognized and documented on PIR 96-1681, and by the time a significant PIR (96-1917) was written to initiate mot cause analysis.PIR 96-1681 was written by PT&E on 6127/96 after their review of closed PIR 96-0313 revealed PIR 96-0313 was incorrectly screened.

PIR 96-0313 was screened as non-significant and should have been significant due to a potential personnel safety near miss and a potentially Inadequate clearance order. Immediate actions taken by PT&E on PIR 96-1681 recognize the need to 'have the issue screened as significant, and Insure a formal root cause analysis is performed.*

Although PIR 96-1681 was originated by PT&E with the above stated on the PIR, PT&E did not classify PIR 96-1681 as significant.

PIR 96-1681 was assigned to PT&E for evaluation.

The evaluation of PIR 96-1681 (written 7/30/96) deals entirely with why PT&E originally misclassified PIR 96-0313. No evaluation is performed of the original personal safety concern or of the clearance order concern. To address the clearance order concern, PT&E issued significant PIR 96-1917 on 7/3096 (4 weeks after PIR 96-1681 was written).a PIR 96-2165 was written recommending changes to PIR forms to help ensure" all references applicable to the identified problem and resolution are recorded, and* primary personnel contacted during problem identification and resolution are recorded on the PIR form.Lack of supporting documentation greatly hampered root cause analysis and diminishes the ability of PIRs to act as useable historical documents.

Usting personnel contacts will help reconstruct events during root cause analysis.Distribution:

Originator:

_D. Pealer (CC-PIA) Quality Evaluations (SE-Q), Training (TR-TR)Nuclear Safety Engineering (SE-NSE), Plant Trending & Evaluation4(SE-PTE)

Others: K. -argis 0B-OP)

H ITI CflDU ADC "A-Amn -M 0- 4 091- IWA4 A4h4 PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT REQUEST PR 9-91 Corrective Actions Taken PAGEK) of iO (for Significant PIRs)Corrective Action Properly Referenced in Procedures Initials:

W Date: 9/5196 Corrective Action Completed By: Date: 015196 Phone: 6709 Responsible Manager Approval:

_ _ _ "_-"_Date:

f'J-5 -Scheduled Effectiveness Follow-up Date: Distrniution:

Originator:

D. Peavler (CC-PI), Quality Evaluations (SE-QE), Training (TR-TR)Nuclear Safety Engineering (SE-NSE), Plant Trending & Evaluation (SE-PTE)Others: K. HarWis (OB-P)

T FORM APF 28A-001-06, Rev. 1 96 06054 FK 33 PROMNEIMPROVEMENT REQUEST PRMf Effectiveness Follow-up PAGE l_ of (for Significant PIRs)A. EFFECTVNESS FOLLO SS AND RESULTS PIR 96-1917 was reviewed for effectiveness of corrective actions at preventing similar problems.The corrective actions have been Implemented as follows: A review of the clearance orders on the traveling screens from 8/30196 through 11/21/96 revealed four clearance orders: 96-1376SW, 96-1377SW for 1013/96 -10/4W96, and 96-1463SW, and 96-1464SW for 10/31/96 -11/11/96.

All included the necessary three local hand switches and three breakers tagged off.PIR 96-1917 has been included In Operations required reading and is documented under RR# OP 960000071.

PIR 96-2164 was written and assigned to Plant Trending and Evaluation.

It was closed 10/24/96.PIR 96-2165 was written and assigned to Plant Trending andEvaluation.

It was closýd 10/10/96.A review of the PIR trend database using key words (for all groups) *traveling screen*, *travel*, *screen* could find no similar events have occurred from 8/30/96 until 11/22196.Interviewed the Supervisor of the Clearance Order Group and he knows of no similar repeat occurrences with the traveling screens.B. Based on the Results of the Effectiveness Follow-Up, Corrective Action to Prevent Recurrence has been: Effective 0 Not Effective

-New PIR #Review Performed by: Kathryn Kline 0 -Date: 11/22/96 Phone: 4403 Responsible Manager Approval:

Date: -IJC Distribution:

Originator.

Dave Peavler CC-PTE_ .Plant Trending & Evaluation (CC-PTE)Others:

A41 IINTEROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION TO: P. M. Martin (WC-OP) EN 93-0214 FRONM E. K. Brown (WC-SYS)DAT~i June 22, 1993 SUBJUCT: Circulating Water System Operations Source

Reference:

OP 93-0242; Request for recommendations on operation of the Circulating Water System.Specific items: 1) One pump operation and valve lineup.For one pump operation use two of the six flow paths through the-condenser.

The two paths chosen should be the upper most paths, i.e. the two upper water boxes or one upper and an intermediate water box if the:one upper box is tagged out for maintenance.

The other water box isolation valves shall be closed. The attached plot is from Calc. No.CW-M-005 and is recommended for incorporation into the appropriate procedures.

The pump discharge valve shall then be positioned to-establish pump discharge pressure within the confines indicated on the plot.2) Two pump operation and valve lineup.For two pump operations use all available flow paths and throttle the o pump discharge valves as necessary to achieve a discharge pressure within the confines of the attached plot.3) Sequencing of steps from one pump operation and two pump operation.

When starting two pump operation from a completely secured system 1)establish all available flow paths, 2) start both pumps and 3) throttle the discharge valves as necessary for a discharge pressure within the plot confines.When starting the second pump after extended operation with one pumri running 1) establish all available flow paths, 2) start the second pump and 3) throttle the discharge valves as necessary for a discharge pressure within the plot confines.4) Three pump operation and valve lineup.Use all available flow paths. All valves are to be in their full open position.

The original design pump discharge pressure should be within the confines of the plot. If pump discharge pressure is not within the plot confines an investigation into a possible pump and/or motor prcblem should be initidted.

5) Rated ampere capacity of a Circulating Water Pump Motor.The motor has design ratings of 4000 horsepower with 135 amps at 13200 volts supply voltage. The normal supply voltage is higher so the resulting moti-. amps drawn will be lower for any required power level."SAFETY! BE WISE, DON'T COMPROMISE" I EN 93-0214 Page 2 June 22, 1993 At the design voltage level of 13200 volts and normal hydraulic requirements the motor will draw from 98 to 125 amps. The normal hydraulic power requirements at the normal supply voltage level of 14100 volts will result in amps drawn from approximately 92 to 117 amps. The 85% limitation you mentioned in a recent conversation is from design hydraulic and electrical conditions and results in 115 amps. This value is still & good limit for normal supply voltage levels (314000 volts)since all but the extreme upper end (low flow portion) of the pump curve are within this value. The pump normally will run closer to the runout end of the curve so this should not be a concern.Additional Information:

Mike Watson, large motor System Engineer and Charley Minor, Electrical Maintenance, are working on a PIR as a result of the motor bearing problem from last outage. Other problems became apparent, such as the lack of alarms for the motor bearing and stator thermocouples during Modes 3 through 6; the computer had these as inactive alarms during these modes. These computer points, as well as others (since it may be a generic problem) are being investigated.

I do recommend monitoring the-motor's computer points for a few hours to watch for a possible problem after starting.Action Item: Please investigate and initiate the appropriate corrective actions for the red banding on the CWP motor amp meters in the Control Room. I noticed the red bands are not consistent for the three meters; two start--- at 135 and one starts at 140. 1 recommend 125 amps as the start of the danger region. Only under unusual pump and supply voltage conditions will this amount of current be drawn.Response

References:

Calc. No. CW-M-005, Calculations for PbM 1464 10466-M-10DA System Description,.

Circulating Water System FD-CW-01-WC Functional Description, Circulating Water Description A-3812-40944 Ingersoll-Rand Pump Curve, Circulating Water Pump A-3812-114D231M, Synchronous Motor Outline Edwin Brown System Engineer cc: C. G. Minor (WC-ME)C. M. Sprout (WC-SYS)M. D. Watson (WC-SYS)J. D. Weeks (WC-OP)Records Management (WC-DS) 20.C6 X 20 TO THe INCH.) I X mu K*FIICUVZL

£Sta3 uCt. own.*0 f * ~ 0 1 If /r I A 4............

... .V%...........

4 44 111H fill-Iif 10 lp ita FLot,6 (05%)P5 ..........................................1 ""AS44.961 1 "LL#44M4.

..... ..... ..... .. R oL4 3..ll.I.I.IJ.JJIIJJJI lift! liflhlil 111111111111111111 I 1111111111111 ft III! liii III I jjJtJ.14.144t'fliilllTillI III I liii ii ~fiHl ~H ~1~1II IH IlIHI Ii I~t'III1JIilt'III'IIJiii~~JI!N1I iIiiIIJIIJ ii ii iJJIJJi1~1tIJ1Jj.I0 ... ..ZWi I M1111C.A E ...... ...._

A42 4-7_APPENDIX B TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-42 KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT COMPANY KANSAS ELECTRIC POWER COOPERATIVE, INC.WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION UNIT 1 DOCKET NO. 50-482 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN (NONRADIOLOGICAL)

WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION UNIT NO. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN (NON-RADIOLOGICAL)

July, 1984 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Paae 1.0 Objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan ...................

1-1 2.0 Environmental Protection Issues ...............................

2-1 2.1 A quatic Issues .............................................

2-1 2.2 Terrestrial Issues ...........................................

2-2 3.0 Consistency Requirements

...................................

3-1 3.1 Plant Design and Operation

..................................

3-2 3.2 Reporting Related to the NPDES Permit and State Certification

.........................................

3-3 3.3 Changes Required for Compliance with Other Environmental Regulations

...................................

3-3 4.0 Environmental Conditions

....................................

4-1 4.1 Unusual or Important Environmental Events ......................

4-1 4.2 Environmental Monitoring and Management

......................

4-1 4.2.1 Fog M onitoring

...........................................

4-1 4.2.2 W aterfowl Im paction .......................................

4-1 4.2.3 Land M anagem ent .........................................

4-1 5.0 Administrative Procedures

...................................

5-1 5.1 Review and Audit ...........

5-1 5.2 Retention of Program Documentation

..........................

5-1 5.3 Changes in Environmental Protection Plan ......................

5-1 5.4 Plan Reporting Requirements

................................

5-1 5.4.1 Routine Reports ..........................................

5-1 5.4.2 Nonrountine Reports .......................................

5-2 1.0 Objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan The Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) is to provide for protection of nonradiological values during operation of Wolf Creek Generating Station.The principal objectives of the EPP are as follows: (a) Verify that the facility is operated in an environmentally acceptable manner, as established by the Final Environmental Statement Operating License Stage NUREG-0878 (FES-OLS), and other NRC environmental impact assessments.(b) Coordinate NRC requirements, assure they are suitably fulfilled and maintain consistency with other Federal, State and local requirements for environmental protection.(c) Keep NRC informed of the environmental effects of facility operation and of actions taken to control those effects.Environmental concerns identified in the FES-OLS which relate to water quality matters are regulated by the NPDES permit issued by the State of Kansas.1-1 2.0 Environmental Protection Issues In the FES-OL dated January, 1982, the staff considered the environmental im-pacts associated with the operation of Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS).Certain environmental issues were identified which required monitoring, study or license conditions to resolve environmental concerns and to assure adequate protection of the environment.

2.1 Aquatic Issues (a) The impacts of Wolf Creek Generating Station operation on the aquatic environment of the John Redmont Reservoir

-Neosho River system will be negligible during periods of normal and above-normal hydrologic conditions in the upstream watershed.

However, should a severe and prolonged drought occur, the withdrawal of cooling-lake makeup water from the Redmont Dam tailwaters area would contribute to a marked draw-down of water in the reservoir and to reduced streamflow in the river, thus severly depleting available aquatic habitat and adversely affecting resident biota. (FES Section 5.5.2.1)(b) Some of the operational effects on aquatic organisms in the cooling lake will be locally severe. For example, periodically high concentrations of total residual chlorine in the vicinity of the cooling water discharge outlet is expected to cause appreciable mortality among aquatic organisms, especially during periods when temperatures in the area are insufficient to cause fish and other motile species to avoid the area. (FES Section 5.5.2.2)(c) Cold shock effects on fish due to reactor shutdowns could cause significant mortality to aquatic species in the cooling lake. (FES Section 5.5.2.2)(d) Impingement and/or entainment impacts on aquatic biota are expected to be significant since the approach velocity of water flow to the facility are relatively high. (FES Section 5.5.2.2)(e) Discharge from the cooling lake to Wolf Creek is expected to influence the composition of aquatic communities immediately downstream from the discharge outlet, but aquatic biota of the Wolf Creek- Neosho River con-fluence will not be adversely affected by the discharge. (FES Section 5.5.2.3)The NRC will rely on the State of Kansas for determination of the need for monitoring or permit limitations related to these and other aquatic issues.2-1 2.2 Terrestrial Issues (a) That the composition and structure of vegetation in the 453 ha (1120 acre) exclusion zone will be selectively controlled to be compatible with the function and security of station facilities. (FES-OLS: Section 5.5.1.1; Station Site)(b) That the vegetation within a buffer zone surrounding the cooling lake will be retained in or allowed to develop toward a natural state, i.e.naturally occurring biotic communities. (FES-OLS:

Section 5.5.1.1;Station Site)(c) That herbicides used for the maintenance of transmission line corridors will be limited to herbicides approved by the U. S. EPA and the State of Kansas at the times of such use. (FES-OLS:

Section 5.5.1.2; Energy-Transmission System)(d) That in the event of a serious disease problem involving waterfowl attribut-able to station operation occurs, the actions specified in the reference will be initiated following technical evaluation if deemed necessary.(FES-OLS:

Section 5.5.1.1; Station Site)(e) The need for a wildlife monitoring program which includes a general survey program for waterfowl collision events be accomplished. (FES-OLS:

Sec-tion 5.5.1.2; Energy-Transmission System)(f) The need for a fog monitoring program to document any potential increase in fogging due to the operation of the cooling lake heat dissipation system. (FES-OLS:

Section 5.4.1; Fog and Ice)2-2 3.0 Consistency Requirements 3.1 Plant Design and Operation The licensee may make changes in station design or operation or perform tests or experiments affecting the environment provided such activities do not in-volve an unreviewed environmental question and do not involve a change in the EPP*. Changes in station design, operation, performance of tests or experi-ments which do not affect the environment are not subject to the requirements of this EPP. Activities governed by Section 3.3 are not subject to the require-ments of this Section.Before engaging in additional construction or operational activities which may significantly affect the environment, the licensee shall prepare and record an environmental evaluation of such activity.

Activities are excluded from this requirement if all measurable nonradiological environmental effects are con-fined to the on-site areas previously disturbed during site preparation and plant construction.

When the evaluation indicates that such activity involves an unreviewed environmental question, the licensee shall provide a written evaluation of such activity and obtain prior NRC approval.

When such activity involves a change in the EPP, such activity and change to the EPP may be imple-mented only in accordance with an appropriate license amendment as set forth in Section 5.3 of this EPP.A proposed change, test or experiment shall be deemed to involve an unreviewed environmental question if it concerns:

(1) a matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the FES-OL, environmental impact appraisals, or in any decisions of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; or (2) a significant change in effluents or power level (3) a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in the doc-uments specified in (1) of this Subsection, which may have a significant adverse environmental impact.* This provision does not relieve the licensee of the requirements of 10 CFR 50.59.3-1 The licensee shall maintain records of changes in facility design or operation and of tests and experiments carried out pursuant to this Subsection.

These records shall include written evaluations which provide bases for the deter-mination that the change, test, or experiment does not involve an unreviewed environmental question or constitute a decrease in the effectiveness of this EPP to meet the objectives specified in Section 1.0. The licensee shall in-clude as part of the Annual Environmental Operating Report (per Subsection 5.4.1) brief descriptions, analyses, interpretations, and evaluations of such changes, tests and experiments.

3.2 Reporting Related to the NPDES Permit and State Certification Changes to, or renewals of, the NPDES Permit or the State certification shall be reported to the NRC within 30 days following the date the change or renewal is approved.

If a permit or certification, in part or in its entirety, is appealed and stayed, the NRC shall be notified within 30 days following the date the stay is granted.The licensee shall notify the NRC of changes to the effective NPDES Permit pro-posed by the licensee by providing the NRC with a copy of the proposed change at the same time it is submitted to the permitting agency. The licensee shall provide the NRC a copy of the application for renewal of the NPDES Permit at the same time the application is submitted to the permitting agency.3.3 Changes Required for Compliance with Other Environmental Regulations Changes in plant design or operation and performance of tests or experiments which are required to achieve compliance with other Federal, State, and local environmental regulations are not subject to the requirements of Section 3.1.3-2 4.0 Environmental Conditions 4.1 Unusual or Important Environmental Events Any occurrence of an unusual or important event that indicates or could result in significant environmental impact casually related to plant operation shall be recorded and promptly reported to the NRC within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> followed by a written report per Subsection 5.4.2. The following are examples:

excessive bird impaction events, onsite plant or animal disease outbreaks, mortality or unusual occurrence of any species protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, fish kills, increase in nuisance organisms or conditions, and unantici-pated or emergency discharge of waste water or chemical substances.

No routine monitoring programs are required to implement this condition.

4.2 Environmental Monitoring and Management Environmental monitoring and management activities shall be undertaken as out-lined in Section 2 and as described in the following.

4.2.1 Fog Monitoring A fog monitoring program shall be accomplished to document the frequency of occurrence of natural fog and future cooling lake operation induced fog through the first year of commercial operation of WCGS. A visiometer and continuous recorder shall be utilized in a conservative location throughout the program.4.2.2 Waterfowl Impaction A general survey program shall be accomplished to document significant water-fowl collision events and determine if mitigation is warranted.

4.2.3 Land Management There shall be a land management program instituted at WCGS to provide for revegetation, maintenance, and restoration of the WCGS site. This program shall attempt to achieve a balance between production and conservation values on site property through the implementation of conservation and wildlife management techniques.

There shall be no reporting requirements associated with this condition.

4-1 5.0 Administrative Procedures 5.1 Review and Audit The licensee shall provide for review and audit of compliance with the EPP.The audits shall be conducted independently of the individual or groups responsible for performing the specific activity.

A description of the organization structure utilized to achieve the independent review and audit function and results of the audit activities shall be maintained and made available for inspection.

5.2 Retention of Program Documentation Program documentation relative to the environmental aspects of plant operation shall be made and retained in a manner convenient for review and inspection.

Program documentation shall be made available to NRC on request.Documentation of modifications to plant structures, systems, and components determined to potentially affect the continued protection of the environment shall be retained for the life of the plant. All other information, data, and finalized reports relating to this EPP shall be retained for five years or, where applicable, in accordance with the requirements of other agencies.5.3 Changes in Environmental Protection Plan Requests for changes in the EPP shall include an assessment of the environmental impact of the proposed change and a supporting justification.

Implementation of such changes in the EPP shall not commence prior to NRC approval of the pro-posed changes in the form of a license amendment incorporating the appropriate revision to the EPP.5.4 Plan Reporting Requirements 5.4.1 Routine Reports An Annual Environmental Operating Report describing implementation of this EPP for the previous calendar year shall be submitted to the NRC prior to May 1 of each year. The initial report shall be submitted prior to May 1 of the year following issuance of the operating license. The period of the first report shall begin with the date of issuance of the operating license.5-1 The report shall include summaries and analyses of the results of the environ-mental protection activities required by Subsection 4.2 of this EPP for the report period, including a comparison with related preoperational studies, operational controls (as appropriate), and previous non-radiological environ-mental monitoring reports, and an assessment of the observed impacts of the plant operation on the environment.

If harmful effects or evidence of trends toward irreversible damage to the environment are observed, the licensee shall provide a detailed analysis of the data and a proposed course of action to alleviate the problem.The Annual Environmental Operating Report shall also include: (a) A list of EPP noncompliances and the corrective actions taken to remedy them.(b) A list of all changes in station design or operation, tests, and experiments made in accordance with Subsection 3.1 which involved a potentially significant unreviewed environmental issue.(c) A list of nonroutine reports submitted in accordance with Subsection 5.4.2.In the event that some results are not available by the report due date, the report shall be submitted noting and explaining the missing results. The miss-ing results shall be submitted as soon as possible in a supplementary report.5.4.2 Nonroutine Reports A written report shall be submitted to the NRC within 30 days of occurrence of an unusual or important environmental event (see Section 4.1). The report shall (a) describe, analyze, and evaluate the event, including extent and magnitude of the impact, and plant operating conditions, (b) describe the probable cause of the event, (c) indicate the action taken to correct the reported event, (d) indicate the corrective action taken to preclude repeti-tion of the event and to prevent the similar occurrences involving similar components or systems, and (e) indicate the agencies notified and their preliminary responses.

Events, reportable under this subsection which also require reports to other Federal, State or local agencies shall be reported in accordance with those reporting requirements in lieu of the requirements of this Subsection.

The NRC shall be provided a copy of such report at the time it is submitted to the other agency.5-2 A4-2 WOLF CREEK'NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION AP 07-002 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM ,Responsible Manager Manager Regulatory Affairs Revision Number 2 Use Category Reference Administrative Controls Procedure Yes Management Oversight Evolution No Program Number 07 DC38 8/4/2006 Revision:

2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM AP 07-002 Reference Use Page 1 of 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE.1.0 PURPOSE 2 2.0 SCOPE 2

3.0 REFERENCES

AND COMMITMENTS 2 4.0 DEFINITIONS 3 5.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 3 6.0 PROCEDURE 5 7.0 RECORDS 8 8.0 FORMS 8 Revision:

2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM AP 07-002 Reference Use Page 2 of 8 1.0 PURPOSE 1.1 This procedure establishes the administrative controls required to support the management commitment to operate the Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) with minimal environmental impact.2.0 SCOPE 2.1 The WCGS Environmental Protection Program includes meeting the requirements of the Environmental Protection Plan, Environmental Permits and Corporate Policy 5 Environmental Stewardship.

2.2 This procedure requires that changes in station design, operation, or performance of tests or experiments be controlled in accordance with the Environmental Protection Plan.2.3 The procedure also requires that events and noncompliances be controlled in a manner protective of environmental quality at WCGS in accordance with the Environmental Protection Plan.

3.0 REFERENCES

AND COMMITMENTS 3.1 References 3.1.1 Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), Appendix B to Facility Operating License NPF-42 3.1.2 NUREG-0878, Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1 3.1.3 Kansas Air Emission Source Class II Operating Permit 0310021 3.1.4 Kansas Water Pollution Control Permit and Authorization to Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit I-NE07-P002 3.1.5 Corporate Policy 3, Quality 3.1.6 Corporate Policy 5, Environmental Stewardship 3.1.7 AP 05-005, DESIGN, IMPLEMENTATION AND CONFIGURATION CONTROL OF MODIFICATIONS 3.1.8 AP 07-004, COMMUNICATIONS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY AUTHORITIES 3.1.9 AP 26A-003, 10 CFR 50.59 REVIEWS 3.1.10 AP 28A-001, PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT REQUEST Revision:

2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM AP 07-002 Reference Use Page 3 of 8 3.1.11 AI 07-002, EPP PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATIONAL CHANGE EVALUATION 3.1.12 AI 07-003, SITE SURVEILLANCE 3.1.13 AI 26A-003, REGULATORY EVALUATIONS (OTHER THAN 10 CFR 50.59)3.2 Commitments 3.2.1 None 4.0 DEFINITIONS 4.1 Cultural Resources 4.1.1 Means areas, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering and culture.5.0 RESPONSIBILITIES 5.1 Environmental Management 5.1.1 Develops and implements procedures for performance of evaluations mandated by the EPP.5.1.2 Evaluates unusual or important events, which may cause environmental impact as defined in the EPP.5.1.3 Performs environmental monitoring, site surveillances and studies in accordance with approved procedures or plans.5.1.4 Administers environmental permits necessary for operation of WCGS.5.1.5 Performs liaison role with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE).5.1.6 Maintains the Land Management Program in accordance with section 4.2.3 of the EPP.5.1.7 Generates the Annual Environmental Operating Report in accordance with section 5.4.1 of the EPP.5.1.8 Generates written reports that are submitted to the NRC within 30 days of occurrence of an unusual or important environmental event in accordance with section 5.4.2 of the EPP.

Revision:

2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM AP 07-002 Reference Use Page 4 of 8 5.1.9 Provides applications for change and applications for renewal of the NPDES Permit to the NRC in accordance with section 3.2 of the EPP.5.2 Operations 5.2.1 Operates WCGS in compliance with environmental permits to minimize environmental impacts.5.2.2 Ensures that changes in station design, operation or performance of tests or experiments affecting the environment receive evaluation by Environmental Management.

5.3 Chemistry 5.3.1 Performs outfall sampling in accordance with the NPDES permit and submits the NPDES data to Environmental Management.

5.3.2 Develops and implements procedures to regulate nonradiological plant effluents within permit limitations.

5.4 Engineering 5.4.1 Ensures that plant modifications are designed to minimize environmental impact.5.4.2 Ensures.that changes in station design, operation or performance of tests or experiments affecting the environment receive evaluation by Environmental Management.

5.5 Quality Oversiqht 5.5.1 Performs independent quality evaluations.

Revision:

2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM AP 07-002 Reference Use Page 5 of 8 6.0 PROCEDURE 6.1 Environmental Protection Plan (EPP)6.1.1 The purpose of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP)is to provide for protection of nonradiological aspects of the environment during operation of WCGS.6.1.2 The principal objectives of the EPP are as follows (reference section 1.0 of EPP): 1. Verify that WCGS is operated in an environmentally acceptable manner, as established by the Final Environmental Statement Operating License Stage NUREG-0878 (FES-OLS) and other NRC environmental impact assessments.

2. Coordinate NRC requirements, assure they are suitably fulfilled and maintain consistency with other Federal, State and local requirements for environmental protection.

3. Keep NRC informed of the environmental effects of facility operation and of actions taken to control those effects.6.1.3 Plant Design and Operational Changes 1. In accordance with the EPP, WCGS may make changes in station design or operation or perform tests or experiments affecting the environment provided such activities do not involve an unreviewed environmental question and do not involve a change in the EPP (reference section 3.1 of EPP).2. Changes in station design, operation, performance of tests or experiments, which do not affect the environment, are not subject to the EPP requirements (reference step 3.1 of EPP).3. Changes in plant design or operation and performance of tests or experiments which are required to achieve compliance with other Federal, State, and local environmental regulations, are not subject to the EPP requirements (reference step 3.3 of EPP).4. Environmental Management shall evaluate plant modifications and operational changes potentially involving environmental impact prior to implementation of the change.

Revision:

2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM AP 07-002 Reference Use Page 6 of 8 5. Changes for which an unreviewed environmental question is identified shall have a written evaluation and NRC approval prior to implementation.

6.1.4 Changes to the Environmental Protection Plan 1. Requests for changes to the EPP shall include an assessment of the environmental impact of the proposed change and a supporting justification (reference section 5.3 of EPP).2. Implementation of such changes to the EPP shall not commence prior to NRC approval of the proposed changes in the form of a license amendment incorporating the appropriate revision to the EPP (reference section 5.3 of EPP).6.1.5 Unusual/Important Environmental Events 1. Any occurrence of an unusual or important event that indicates or could result in significant environmental impact causally related to plant operation shall be reported immediately to Environmental Management (reference section 4.1 of EPP). Examples include: a. Excessive bird impaction events b. Onsite plant or animal disease outbreaks c. Mortality or unusual occurrence of any species protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 d. Fish kills e. Increase in nuisance organisms or conditions

f. Unanticipated or emergency discharge of wastewater or chemical substances

g. discovery of previously unknown cultural resources 2. Environmental Management will promptly perform an evaluation to determine if significant environmental impact has or could result.

Revision:

2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM AP 07-002 Reference Use Page 7 of 8 3. Events that indicate or could result in significant environmental impact shall be reported to the NRC within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> followed by a written report per section 5.4.2 of the EPP.NOTE Fish kill events due to cold-shock confined to the lake are not considered reportable to the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks or the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.

However, a courtesy call should be considered to keep these agencies informed.4. The following guidance should be considered when determining whether or not an event is significant and thus reportable per the EPP: a. Any environmental event that has a reasonable probability of receiving the attention of the news media.b. Any environmental event that has, or has the potential to, cause adverse impacts offsite.c. Events on site that have or will cause environmental impacts greater than that documented in the FES-OLS.6.2 Environmental Permits 6.2.1 The EPP requires that WCGS be operated in compliance with environmental permits.6.2.2 Procedures shall be developed that regulate plant effluents, i.e., air, wastewater, etc., within permit limitations.

6.2.3 Noncompliance with station environmental permits shall be identified to Environmental Management.

1. Notifications to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) shall be accomplished in accordance with AP 07-004.6.2.4 Plant effluent or wastewater monitoring shall be performed as required by the Air Operating Permit and the NPDES Permit.

Revision:

2 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAM AP 07-002 Reference Use Page 8 of 8 6.2.5 Site surveillances performed in accordance with AI 07-003 will be used to ensure compliance with applicable requirements of this section.6.3 Corporate Policy 5 Environmental Stewardship 6.3.1 WCGS is to be operated in a safe and environmentally sensitive manner.6.3.2 The Company is dedicated to protecting environmental quality in areas surrounding WCGS.6.3.3 Adherence to this procedure ensures that operational and support activities minimize and measure the environmental effect of operations at WCGS.6.3.4 Site surveillances performed in accordance with AI 07-003 will be used to ensure compliance with the requirements of this section.6.4 Audit of the EPP 6.4.1 Audits shall be performed in accordance with section 5.1 of the Environmental Protection Plan.6.5 Non-compliance and Corrective Action 6.5.1 Environmental Protection Plan, Environmental Permits and Corporate Policy 5 Environmental Stewardship non-compliance and corrective action shall be documented in accordance with AP 28A-001, PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT REQUEST.7.0 RECORDS 7.1 None 8.0 FORMS 8.1 None-END -

S" chmeden chmeden Doc682A[1] (tiff).04/26/07 08:26 AM= = = = =. .........== = = = = *... ............. ...... ... ...... ..... .. ...............

.. .. .. .... .

A43 WOLF CREEK UPDATED SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT (USAR)p Revision -18 Release Date -DC30 03/11/2005 WOLF CREEK on the Pennsylvanian strata. Quaternary alluvium reaches a thickness of approximately 25 feet in the Wolf Creek valley. Scattered Tertiary age deposits of clayey gravel cap some of the higher hills in the site area.Glacial deposits are not present at the site. The alternating Pennsylvanian strata forming the bedrock surface consist of competent rock units with a low amount of structural discontinuities in the rock mass. No major geologic features have been identified which could adversely affect the stability of subsurface materials at seismic Category I facilities.

Minor geologic features, such .as jointing, the zones of penecontemporaneous deformation, and the weathering profile in the rock, were considered during design and construction of facilities.

Comprehensive geotechnical investigations of the site have determined the subsurface conditions in adequate detail to provide design criteria for foundation support of safety-related facilities.

Major seismic Category I structures are supported on competent rock. Only minor, localized modifications to foundation materials were required in design and construction to provide uniform support of safety-related facilities..

1.2.1.6 Seismology The plant site is located in a relatively seismic stable region of the central..United States. No earthquake epicenter has been reported closer than 40 miles to the site, and the nearest shocks have had epicentral intensities no greater than" Intensity III. At distances of B5 and 105 miles from the site, earthquakes of Intensity VII to VII-VIII have been recorded.

Since 1800, only seven earthquakes of Intensity V or greater have occurred within 100 miles of the site, and 16 events of Intensity VI or greater have been recorded within 200 miles. Previously recorded earthquakes probably have not generated intensities greater than VI at the site, and none of the buildings in the vicinity of the site have sustained any known structural damage due to earthquakes.

An Operating Basis Earthquake corresponding to a horizontal acceleration of six percent of gravity and a Safe Shutdown Earthquake corresponding to a horizontal acceleration of 12 percent of gravity was selected for the site. However, a seismic evaluation of these structures, systems, and components using the Lawrence Livermore Laboratories spectrum anchored at 0.15g for structures supported on bedrock is contained in Appendix 3C.1.2.1.7 Hydrology 1.2.1.7.1 Surface Water Hydrology The plant site is located within the Wolf Creek watershed northeast of Burlington, Kansas. The topography within the watershed varies from 1.2-3 Rev. 14 WOLF CREEK undulating hills upstream of the plant site to a floodplain area shared with the Neosho River with a drainage area within Kansas of 6,300 sq. miles near the mouth of Wolf Creek with a drainage area of 35 sq. miles. The cooling lake alters the draining pattern of the watershed, but safety-related facilities

'are protected from severe hydrological events.The cooling lake is. designed to supply adequate cooling water to the plant during a one in fifty year drought. Makeup water is supplied to the cooling lake from the Wolf Creek watershed runoff and from makeup water pumped from John Redmond Reservoir.

The region surrounding the site is not characterized by events such as tsunamis, surge activity, or severe ice. flooding.

Major dam failures on the Neosho River above Wolf Creek watershed will not affect safety-related facilities.

The flow of the Neosho River is controlled by three reservoirs above the site.The Maximum'flood design elevation of 1097.5 ft. msl.., resulting from the probable maximum flood routed through the cooling lake with coincident wave activity, is below the plant site grade of 1099.5 ft. msl.1.2.1.7.2 Groundwater Hydrology m: 4uantities' of groundwater are available within a 50-mile radiusof thei.plai.:site.

Thie

produCed from three .types of aquifers

the alluvial:deposits in the river valleys , the weathered bedrock including.

the shallow soil, and the unweathered bedrock..Th'e.u-alvi'al' aqui.i'fe'rs' are composed of' silts, sands, and gravel. Yields- from wells in: the alluvial aquifers are- up to 100 galloqnsper minute. Recharge to such aquiifersoccurs from preiitation and from rivers duringiperiods of high flow." 'Regionally, discharge from the alluvial aquifers normally f Lows into the rivers..Th. weathered bedrock;-

aquifer consists,, .of weathered shales, siltstones, s .odstones, and limestones.

' Pressure testsininc~

ae-'efi#en.ý r'i6 a~~ rmnte for livesto~ck and domesti wells. Recharge ýoqcus ftrp t taoný-ýand , ly- rom downward percolat t, 6ogh fe overlying alluvium.

Discharge occurs into both all.uuL an streams.The: consolidated bedrock aquifers are composed of sandstones and limestones which are limited fory eds,,ancinc from 'abou-lto 0,gallons per minute-Recnarge:ýo'-ucnaquifers occurs by precipitation

'.. -1.2-4 Rev. I WOLF CREEKkW6 at the outcrops.

Where overlain by'shales and siltstones, which act.., a'ti-rds~i.and aquicludes, vertical recharge to the limestones and sandstones is minimal.There is no anticipated use of groundwater at the plant site. The operation of the plant will not have any detrimental effect on the groundwater environment, nor will local groundwater use affect the operation of the plant.1.2.1.8 Meteorology The continental location of the site ensures a wide seasonal range of temperature and frequent day to day temperature changes due to frequent passage of cyclonic systems through the vicinity.

The maximum temperature was 117 degrees Fahrenheit recorded at Burlington, Kansas. The lowest extreme temperature was -26 degrees Fahrenheit.

The prevailing winds are from the south' to southeast except during the winter when north to northwest winds prevail. There are no meteorologically significant terrain features or bodies of water within 50 miles of the site.The site vicinity is subject to occasional severe thunderstorms and the possibility of a tornado from early spring until autumn. The world record 42 minute rainfall of 12 inches occurred at Holt, Missouri, approximately 120 miles from the Wolf Creek Site. However, precipitation is generally moderate throughout.

the year and snowfall ranges from very little during some winters to substantial during.others.

The fastest wind, excluding tornadoes was 86 mph.The diffusion climatology is generally favorable due to the frequent passage of cyclonic storm systems..

The poorest diffusion conditions occur during (1)nighttime inversions which become most developed during winters and (2)dominance of the site area by stagnant anticyclonic systems which may persist for several consecutive days, especially during late summer and autumn.1.2.2 GENERAL ARRANGEMENT OF STRUCTURES The principal structures located on the Wolf Creek Generating Station site are listed below.a. Reactor building -. houses the reactor, reactor coolant piping, steam generators, pressurizer, reactor coolant pumps, accumulators, and the containment air coolers;1 .2-5 Rev. 0 WOLF CREEK plant grade elevation of 1,099.5 feet. Its thickness at the site ranges from 40 to 117 feet, and it yields up to 0.5 gallons per minute to wells;d. The Tonganoxie Sandstone Member of the Stranger Formation is a fine-grained, slightly calcareous, micaceous sandstone.

Interbedded with shale and siltstone, it has some vertical fractures.

At the plant site, the top of the Tonganoxie Sandstone is about 290 feet below the plant grade elevation of 1,099.5 feet. Its thickness in this area ranges from 42 to 142 feet, and it rarely yields over 3 gallons per minute to wells.During the boring and aquifer testing program (described in Section 2.5.4), none of the deep bedrock formations yielded more than 2 gallons per minute in a 3-inch test hole; only slightly higher yields could be expected with larger diameter wells. The flow rate was measured by air lifting the water out of the hole. The rate of water-level recovery was timed and measured to determine the permeability.

Water-level readings in the piezometers show that leakyartesian conditions exist in the deeper bedrock strata below the weathered bedrock. The Toronto Limestone Member and younger strata are recharged principally by local precipitation.

Much of the precipitation first recharges the overlying weathered bedrock aquifers which in turn provides some leakage to the deeper units including the Toronto Limestone Member. Pressure tests indicate that the permeability of the deeper bedrock shale units below the Toronto Limestone Member ranges from 10-7 to 10-8 centimeters per second (Section .2.5.4).Ground-water and rock samples from the weathered Jackson Park Shale and Heumader Shale members, and ground water from the Plattsmouth Limestone Member in the Category I area were tested for water-soluble sulfate. It was determined that sulfate concentrations exhibit considerable horizontal and vertical variation within the vicinity of the plant-site. .The sulfate concentrations in soil and rock samples ranged from 3.1 to 535.0 milligrams per kilogram.

Ground-water samples contained sulfate concentrations which ranged from 78.5 to 346.0 milligrams per liter (mg/l). At Well D-26, which was monitored by a water-level recorder during 1973 and 1974 and is located less than one mile northeast from the center of the plant site, sulfate concentrations range from 66 to 71 mg/l. At Well C-2, located approximately 1.75 miles northwest of the plant site, sulfate concentrations have varied between 764 and 1,050 mg/l. For well location and inventory data refer to Figure 2.4-52 and Table 2.4-29.2.4-50 Rev. 0 WOLF CREEK The criterion used for well sealing was in accordance with Sargent & Lundy's Specifications A-3854, (Section 304.1). This specification is reproduced as Table 2.4-29a.The status of well sealing is presented in Tables 2.4-29b and 2.4-29c.2.4.13.1.2 Onsite Use There.is no anticipated use of ground water at or near the site during plant operation.

2.4.13.2 Sources Although most of the public water supplies in the vicinity of the site are derived from surface-water sources, ground water accounts for a small amount of both municipal and private water needs. Information was obtained from public agency contact and a local water well inventory.

A discussion of regional and local ground-water flow regimes is also included in this section.2.4.13.2.1 Regional Public Ground-Water Use This discussion of regional public ground-water use applies to a 20-mile radius of the site (Figure 2.4-53). Table 2.4-30 summarizes the information available regarding the municipal supplies in this region.2.4.13.2.1.1 Present Use The amount of ground water used for public supplies within a 20-mile radius of the plant site is small. The city of Waverly, Kansas, about 10 miles north-northeast of the site, has five wells (228 to 300 feet deep) (References 19 and 15) which obtain water from the Tonganoxie Sandstone (Figure 2.4-53). An average of 39,000 gallons per day (about 5 gallons per minute per well) is pumped from this system (Reference 15). Bailer tests performed by the driller produced 10-25 gallons per minute, but a sustained yield of 5 gallons per minute is typical. A sanitary seal is installed in each well to prevent pollution from the surface from entering the well through the weathered rock zone.The municipalities of Williamsburg, 20 miles northeast, and Melvern, 18 miles north of the site, also obtain water supplies from deep wells in the Tonganoxie Sandstone Member (Table 2.4-30). Borehole tests in the Tonganoxie Sandstone near the site produced yields of less than 3 gallons per minute (Section 2.4.13.1.1.2).

2.4-51 Rev. 0 WOLF CREEK The municipalities of New Strawn, located 3 miles west of the site, and Hartford in Lyons County, located 15 miles west-northwest of the site, obtain ground water from wells less than 40 feet deep in the Neosho River alluvium (Reference 21). At Hartford, the static water level is about .32 feet below ground surface; it is about 12 feet below ground surface in the New Strawn well (Reference 20).The only known ground-water supply being used for industrial purposes within a 20-mile radius of the site is from one well owned by the Atchison Topeka and Santa Fe Railway located about 15 miles northwest of the site (Well No. 39, Table 2.4-4 and Figure 2.4-8). The user has a water right for 10 gallons per minute.2.4.13.2.1.2 Future Use The use of ground water for public supplies in Coffey County is not expected to increase significantly as a result of population changes (Section 2.1.3).Total projected use (as estimated in 1979) is presented in Table 2.4-31 and shows a decrease in ground-water pumpage between 1965 and 1980 followed by an increase to slightly above 1965 levels in 2020 (Reference 22). The current (February, 1984) projected use of water in Coffey County is shown in Table 2.4-31a. The total use of water for domestic and manufacturing purposes increased by 159 acre-feet between 1965 and 1980, largely due to the increased domestic use of water by both the City of New Strawn, which obtains ground water from the alluvium along the Neosho River and the City of Burlington and the water districts around the site which usedtreated surface water, during the short term growth between 1970 and 1980. Although the projections shown in Table 2.4-31a for the year 2000 and after are preliminary and are subject to change, the 1984 projections of Table 2.4-31a for the year 2000 are consistent with the 1979 projections of Table 2.4-31, and show a gradual increase in the use of water for domestic and manufacturing purposes through the year 2035.2.4.13.2.2 Local Ground-Water Use A well inventory was made of 198 wells within 5 miles of the plant site. A summary of the well inventory is listed in Table 2.4-29.2.4.13.2.2.1 Present Use The local wells are used for domestic and livestock purposes.

The 198 wells are reported to produce a total of about 73,400 gallons per day or an average of 382 gallons per day per well. Table 2.4-29 lists the pertinent data collected on each well, and Figure 2.4-52 shows the locations of the property owners of the wells.2.4-52 Rev. 0 WOLF CREEK The wells supply small quantities of water (1/2 to 10 gallons per minute) from the weathered bedrock and larger quantities from the alluvium.

The shallow dug wells have diameters of 3 to 6 feet; the drilled wells have diameters of 6 to 8 inches. Most wells in the area intercept ground water in the weathered bedrock zone where the permeability has been increased by weathering.

There are three water districts within a 5-mile radius of the site. The City of New Strawn is the smallest district and serves the residents of the New Strawn area. This district obtains ground water from the alluvium along the Neosho River below the John Redmond Reservoir near New Strawn. Rural Water Districts No. 2 and 3 serve numerous residents around, the site, encompass a larger geographical area than the City of New Strawn, and both obtain treated surface water from the City of Burlington.

2.4.13.2.2.2 Future Use Information obtained during the well inventory indicates a trend away from domestic ground-water usage and towards the use of treated surface water.Continued local use of ground water for domestic and livestock use is anticipated as shown in the long-term projections (1979 projections) of Table 2.4-31 (References 29 and 11).District No. 2 plans a gradual increase in participants as the general trend from ground water to treated surface water continues.

2.4.13.2.3 Ground-Water Flow Regimes This section describes the regional and local potentiometric surfaces and ground-water gradients.

Regional conditions within 20 miles of the site are based on a literature search, and a site investigation, detailed in Section 2.5.4, was performed to describe local conditions.

The weighted average permeability is given for each water-bearing soil and bedrock unit, and ground-water recharge is discussed.

The effects of local pumping on ground-water levels at the plant site are also discussed.

2.4.13.2.3.1 Regional Conditions Within 20 miles of the site, the shallow ground-water table basically conforms to the topography of the region which has a gradient to the east and south in eastern Kansas. About 15 miles north of the site, shallow ground water in the weathered bedrock zone drains into the Marais des Cygnes River which flows eastward through Osage and Franklin counties, and into Miami County where the river assumes a southeastward course into Missouri (Figure 2.4-53).2.4-53 Rev. 0 WOLF CREEK To the west and south of the site, the shallow ground water drains into the Neosho River which flows southeastward at a gradienet of about 4 feet per mile through Morris, Lyon, Coffey, Woodson, and Allen counties, where it continues southward into Oklahoma (Figure 2.4-53).2.4.13.2.3.2 Local Conditions Surface drainage of the site area is generally to the south by way of Wolf and Long creeks. The gradient of Wolf Creek is about 10 feet per mile, and the gradient of Long Creek is about 7 feet per mile.2.4.13.2.3.2.1 Potentiometric Surfaces The locations of the B-boring piezometers are shown on Figure 2.4-54. The P-, HS-, and ESW-series piezometers are shown on Figure 2.4-55. Graphs of water-level variations in the piezometers for the various rock units are shown on Figure 2.4-56. The piezometer water-level graphs generally show little change of water levels after the effects of drilling and permeability testing have dissipated, and it may be concluded that the ground-water level in the bedrock units is relatively stable.Water levels in the inventoried wells (Table 2.4-29) show that the shallow ground-water table closely parallels the topography within at least a 5-mile radius of the plant site. The gradient of the water table, as determined from the water-table contour map, Figure 2.4-50, ranges from 20 to 160 feet per mile, depending on the topography.

Direction of ground-water flow is perpendicular to the ground-water elevation contour lines (Figure 2.4-50).The potentiometric surface maps for the Plattsmouth Limestone, the Toronto Limestone, and the Ireland Sandstone members (Figures 2.4-57, 2.4-58, and 2.4-59, respectively) are based on piezometer readings for the individual rock units (Tables 2.4-32 and 2.4-33). The gradient of each of the potentiometric surfaces measured from these figures generally dip west and south away from the plant site at approximately 20 feet per mile. The average potentiometric surface gradient of these three units is about one half the average gradient of the ground-water table as measured in the weathered Jackson Park Shale and Heumader Shale members.The ground-water gradient in the shallow, unweathered bedrock generally reflects surface topography more than regional structural trends. Figure 2.4-57 illustrates the potentiometric surface of ground water in the Plattsmouth Limestone Member. This surface is related to the local topography which indicates that there is some hydraulic connection between the Plattsmouth 2.4-54 Rev. 0 N-5 ) , f, *6 0 A3 ARALCAINt--

-Th1 .7*3 11 RNE **~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ST T1 0 AVE1( e 9 to. I) CE.c N' E 0CmkU Rc O TW 21 RAN ( 1 E FL.00 C NTR l. P O 7e z[ 9r4l *14 AG( 1£ I 7a , I 2b LEGEND: SITE BOUNDARY 4COOLING LAKE AT NORMAL OPERATING LEVEL (1087 FEET)7 AREA OUTSIDE SITE BOUNDARY OWNED BY APPLICANTS MILES 0 1 Rev. 0 WOLF CREEK UPDATED SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT Figure 2.4-52 Well Inventory within 5 Miles Relative to Cooling Lake and Property Boundary

REFERENCE:

GENERAL HIGHWAY MAP OF COFFEY COUNTY, KANSAS; PREPARED BY THE KANSAS STATE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT.

FIGURES 2.1-3, 2.4-52, 2.5-2 (FSAR).

A44 PETITION TO LIST Neosho mucket (Lampsilis rafinesqueana)

AS A FEDERALLY ENDANGERED SPECIES CANDIDATE HISTORY CNOR 5/22/84: CNOR 1/6/89: CNOR 11/21/91: CNOR 11/15/94: CNOR 10/30/01:

C CNOR 6/13/02: C TAXONOMY The taxonomic status of the Neosho mucket, Lampsilis rafinesqueana (Unionidae), as a valid species is uncontroversial (e.g., Williams et al. 1993; Obermeyer et al. 1997; Turgeon et al.1998).NATURAL HISTORY Most unionid mussels are obligate parasites on fishes as larvae (glochidia).

Neosho mucket glochidia have .been successfully transformed onto smallmouth and largemouth bass, implicating these species as possible glochidia hosts (Barnhart and Roberts 1997). Gravid female Neosho muckets have been collected in June, July, and August, and females displaying mantle lures have been observed in July, August, and September.

Mantle lures mimic small fish (Obermeyer 1999).The Neosho mucket is associated with stable runs, shoals, and riffles with gravely bottoms and moderate currents (Oesch 1984, Obermeyer 1999). Beyond this limited information, the habitat requirements and ecology of the species are poorly known.The Neosho mucket is known only from the Illinois, Neosho, and Verdigris River basins in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma.

These basins flow into the Arkansas River in Northeastern Oklahoma.

The Neosho mucket has been historically reported from the Illinois River in Oklahoma and Arkansas; the Neosho River in Oklahoma and Kansas; Neosho River tributaries, including the Elk River in Missouri, Cottonwood River in Kansas, and the Spring River in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri, and Spring River tributaries, North Fork Spring River 32 and Indian Creek in Missouri, and Shoal and Center Creeks in Kansas and Missouri; the Verdigris River in Oklahoma and Kansas, and its tributaries, Caney River in Oklahoma and Kansas, and Fall River in Kansas (Harris and Gordon 1988, Obermeyer et al. 1997a, Mather 1990, Vaughn 1996).A number of surveys have recently been conducted to determine the current range and status of the Neosho mucket. In Arkansas, the Neosho mucket was found at 19 of 22 survey sites in the Illinois River, Washington/Benton Counties.

Although the Neosho mucket was the third most abundant species collected from the approximately 50-kilometer (km)(30-miles (mi)) surveyed reach of river, there was little evidence of recent recruitment (i.e., small, young mussels were seldom collected) (Harris 1998). The species has not been found in surveys of other tributaries of the Arkansas River in Arkansas (Harris and Gordon 1988).In Oklahoma, living Neosho muckets were found to be locally common in about 92 km (55 mi)of the Illinois River from the Oklahoma/Arkansas State line, downstream to the headwaters of Tenkiller Lake, Cherokee County, Oklahoma (Mather 1990). The population within the survey reach was estimated at more than 1200 individuals.

Population demographics were skewed toward older aged cohorts, and only 3 animals were encountered during the survey that could be considered juveniles (i.e., evidence of recent recruitment).

Neosho muckets were not found within, or below Tenkiller Lake.More recent surveys in northeastern Oklahoma (Vaughn 1995, 1996, 1997) found Neosho muckets locally common at 9 of 42 sites on the Illinois River. Vaughn (1997) estimated the population within the Oklahoma portion of the Illinois River (the same reach surveyed by Mather in 1990) at between 500 and 1,000 Neosho muckets. Although some evidence of reproduction was observed (i.e., gravid females displaying mantle lures), there was little evidence of recruitment into the population (i.e., very few small, young Neosho muckets were collected).

Searches in other historically occupied drainages in Oklahoma found no live Neosho muckets at 10 sites on the Spring River, 17 sites on the Neosho River, 32 sites on the Verdigris River, and 29 sites on the Caney River, however, relic Neosho mucket shells confirmed the historic presence of the species at many of these sites, and fresh dead Neosho mucket shells were found at two sites on the Spring River. The results of these recent surveys suggest the Neosho mucket has been extirpated from the Caney, Verdigris, Neosho, and Spring Rivers in Oklahoma (Mather 1990; Vaughn 1995, 1996, 1997).During recent mussel surveys of historically occupied streams in Kansas and Missouri, living Neosho muckets or fresh dead shells were found in the lower Fall River, Greenwood and Wilson Counties, Kansas; the Verdigris River between the Toronto Lake Dam and the confluence of the Elk River, Wilson and Montgomery Counties, Kansas; the Neosho River between the John Redmond Reservoir Dam and the Parsons City Dam in Coffey, Allen, and Neosho Counties, Kansas; and the Spring and North Fork Spring Rivers, and Center and Shoal Creeks in Cherokee County, Kansas, and Jasper County, Missouri (Obermeyer et al. 1997a, Obermeyer 1999).Neosho muckets were relatively rare in the Fall, Verdigris, Neosho, and North Fork Spring Rivers, and Shoal Creek, representing from 0.2-1.7 percent of all live mussels collected, and 33 were not found at all stations surveyed.

Neosho muckets were most abundant in a short reach (-10 km (6 mi)) of the Spring River, between the Missouri/Kansas State Line'and the confluence of Center Creek, where it was the most abundant species found at 11 collection sites. In Center Creek, Jasper County, Missouri, only a single fresh dead shell was found. At all sites where living Neosho muckets were found, there was little evidence of recruitment.

Based upon Obermeyer et al. (1997a) and others (Cope 1979, Cope and Distler 1985, Metcalf 1980), the Neosho mucket has been extirpated from the Elk, Caney, Cottonwood, and South Fork of the Cottonwood Rivers, the Neosho River above John Redmond Reservoir, the Verdigris River above Toronto Lake, the Fall River above Fall River Lake, and the lower reaches of the Spring River, Shoal and Center Creeks in Kansas, and Indian Creek in Missouri.POPULATION STATUS 3,000 -10,000 individuals exist on 10,000 -50,000 acres. The estimated 250 stream miles of occupied habitat mostly support small populations.

Historically, one of the most common mussels in parts of its range, it is now rare and shows no signs of recruitment, and faces major threats (Busby and Vaughn in NatureServe Explorer 2002).The Neosho mucket is protected under Kansas and Oklahoma State laws as an endangered

.species. The Illinois River in Oklahoma is a State-designated mussel sanctuary, and no mussel harvest is allowed. The species is not protected in Arkansas and Missouri, beyond general mussel harvest laws. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature(IUCN) classifies the species as endangered.

The Natural Heritage Programs of Arkansas, Kansas, and Oklahoma rank the Neosho mucket as Critically Imperiled.

The Missouri Natural Heritage Program ranks the Neosho mucket as Imperiled.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classifies the Neosho mucket as a candidate for Endangered Species Act protection with a listing priority number of 5.LISTING CRITERIA A. The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range.Historical range: Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri.

The Neosho mucket has been historically reported from the Illinois River in Oklahoma and Arkansas;the Neosho River in Oklahoma and Kansas; Neoshq River tributaries, including the Elk River in Missouri, Cottonwood River in Kansas, and the Spring River in Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri, and Spring River tributaries, North Fork Spring River and Indian Creek in Missouri, and 34 Current range: Land ownership:

Shoal and Center Creeks in Kansas and Missouri; the Verdigris River in Oklahoma and Kansas, and its tributaries, Caney River in Oklahoma and Kansas, and Fall River in Kansas (Harris and Gordon 1988, Obermeyer et al. 1997a, Mather 1990, Vaughn 1996).Arkansas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri.

In summary, the Neosho mucket has been extirpated from approximately 70 percent of its historic range.Most of this extirpation has occurred within the Oklahoma and Kansas portions of its range. Causes of the disappearance of the species from many areas have been attributed to impoundment, mining, and pollution (Mather 1990, Obermeyer et al. 1997b). The Neosho mucket survives in four river drainages, however, only two of these, the Spring and Illinois Rivers, currently support potentially viable populations of the species due to the presence of a relatively large number of individuals.

However, recruitment is either very low or not occurring in all of the extant populations.

Over 90% of the lands draining the watersheds populated by Neosho muckets are privately owned. An extensive reach of the Illinois River in Arkansas flows through Ozark National Forest. With the exception of the Spring River, all river reaches currently supporting Neosho muckets in Kansas and Oklahoma are controlled or affected by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reservoirs.

The Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation manages a 565-acre primitive area on the Illinois River. The Nature Conservancy is acquiring 15,000 acres on the Illinois River. In addition, the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks owns a small parcel of land (representing less than one river mile of streambank) along the Spring River in Cherokee County, which includes a portion of the large remnant population of Neosho Muckets in this stretch of river.The reduction of habitat and range of the Neosho mucket has been attributed to impoundment, sedimentation, agricultural pollutants (Mather 1990, Obermeyer et al. (1997b), and mining (Obermeyer et al. 1997b). At least 11 major dams have been constructed that have impounded significant portions of the historic range of the Neosho mucket, effectively resulting in fragmented Neosho mucket populations and habitats.

The species does not tolerate lentic conditions and has not been collected from those portions of its historic habitat that have been impounded.

In addition, it is believed that the operation of these dams will continue to negatively affect the Neosho mucket. For instance, Obermeyer et al. (1997b) noted extensive bank scouring in the Neosho River below John Redmond Dam and made observations that suggest channel instability as a primary factor in mussel distribution below this dam.Several types of pollution are also thought to affect Neosho mucket populations.

Sediment is probably the most abundant pollutant currently affecting the Neosho mucket (Obermeyer 1999).Excessive sedimentation is known to cause direct mortality of freshwater mussels by deposition and suffocation (Ellis 1936) and can eliminate or reduce the recruitment of juvenile mussels 35 (Negus 1966, Box and Mossa 1999). High suspended sediment levels can also interfere with feeding activity (Dennis 1984). Sediment sources within the current range of the Neosho mucket include cultivated fields, cattle grazing, and urban, suburban, and rural construction activities.

Sediment levels within the range of the Neosho mucket are higher than historic levels and are likely to increase.

For example, the Illinois River in Arkansas drains portions of the two fastest growing counties in Arkansas.

Continued development and growth within this basin will likely result in increased sediment and nutrient impacts to this river and to the Neosho mucket population found there (personal communication cited in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service candidate assessment form).Eutrophication, caused by the introduction of excess nutrients to a water body, has been shown to result in periodic low dissolved oxygen levels that are detrimental to mussels (Sparks and Strayer 1998). Excess nutrients also promote heavy growth of blue-green and other algae that can eliminate habitat for juvenile musseIs. Nutrients, usually phosj~horus aiid iirogen' canemanate from agricultural, urban and suburban runoff, including cultivated fields and pastures, livestock feedlots, leaking septic tanks, residential lawns, etc., in levels that result in eutrophication and reduced oxygen levels. At least one example of this has been documented within the range of the Neosho mucket where extirpation of mussel species from the Cottonwood River during the 1960s was attributed to feedlot runoff (Obermeyer et al. 1997b).Pesticide residues from agricultural, residential, or silvicultuial activities may also impact Neosho mucket populations, however, there is currently no available information on the sensitivity of this species to common pesticides.

Nonetheless, chemical run-off or spills have resulted in mussel mortalities in various regions of the country, and there is no reason to believe that the Neosho mucket would be any less susceptible to pesticide residues than other mussel species. In fact, toxic contamination, including oil and saltwater spills, and heavy'metals from mine tailings, have resulted in miussel mortality in the Cottonwood and Spring Rivers in the past (see Obermeyer 1999), but it is not known whether or not any of these mortalities were Neosho muckets. Also, pesticides and high fecal coliform counts have been reported for the Verdigris.

River downstream of Independence, Kansas, (Kansas Department of Health and Environment 1994) which are likely to affect the quality of Neosho mucket habitat.In-stream and floodplain sand and gravel mining has been shown to cause channel degradation and is associated with mussel declines and extirpations in a number of river basins (Box and Mossa 1999, Hartfield 1993, Kanehl and Lyons 1992). An unknown number of mining operations are known to exist within the historic range of the species, and it is likely that other operations will be initiated in the future as the demand for gravel for roads and construction-related activities increases.

Since Neosho muckets inhabit gravel/sand stream beds that are vulnerable to mining activities, it is expected that this particular threat to Neosho mucket habitat will increase.

Pollution from mineral mining has already been implicated in the extirpation of all mussel species, including the Neosho mucket, from the lower Spring River in Kansas (in litt.2000 cited in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service candidate assessment form).B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes.36 The Neosho mucket was once valuable in the pearl button industry, and historic episodes of over-harvest in the Neosho River may have contributed to its decline (Obermeyer et al. 1 997b).Commercial harvest of the species is now prohibited in Kansas and Oklahoma.

Arkansas currently permits commercial harvest of Neosho muckets at sizes of four inches or greater in length, and Missouri prohibits commercial mussel harvest but allows up to five Neosho muckets per person per day to be collected for private purposes (e.g., bait, shell collection, etc.). It is not known what effect the legal harvest of Neosho muckets is having on the populations of the species in these two states, but harvest for the cultured pearl nuclei trade is either prohibited or restricted to some degree in those states. Overall, the Neosho mucket's limited distribution and small population sizes makes it vulnerable to illegal commercial harvest.C. Disease or predation.

Diseases of freshwater mussels are poorly known, and are unknown as a factor in the decline of the Neosho mucket. Juvenile and adult mussels are prey items for some invertebrate predators and parasites (e.g., flatworms, trematodes, mites, etc.), and provide prey for a few vertebrate species (e.g., racoons, muskrats, minks, freshwater drum, etc.). Predation by naturally occurring predators is a normal aspect of the population dynamics of a healthy mussel population.

However, predation may contribute to the further decline of localized mussel populations with low numbers of individuals and limited recruitment.

Escape of the non-native black carp, a molluscivore currently grown and used for mollusk control in fish farm operations, could present a threat of increased predation to native mollusks, including the Neosho mucket, but it is not known whether or not this species is being utilized by fish farmers within the range of the Neosho mucket. There is one record of an accidental release of black carp in Missouri (personal communication cited in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service candidate assessment form). In April 1994, 30 or more black carp were released from an aquaculture facility near Lake of the Ozarks/Bagnell Dam when the fish were washed into the Osage River during a flood event. To date, none of these fish have been recaptured.

The fish were reported to be triploid (non-reproductive).

The Missouri Department of Conservation also recently made a decision to propagate certified triploid black carp for use in aquaculture facilities to control the yellow grub, a pest of aquaculture facilities throughout the Midwest and Gulf Coast states. Even if these fish are non-reproductive, accidental releases into streams could still impact native mussels, including Neosho mucket, as a result of increased predation.

D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms.

Although the negative effects of point source discharges on aquatic communities within the range of the Neosho mucket have been reduced over time by compliance with State and Federal regulations pertaining to water quality, there has been less success in dealing with non-point source pollution.

Such impacts result from individual private landowner activities (e.g., construction, grazing, agriculture, silviculture, etc.), and public construction works (e.g., bridge and highway construction and maintenance, etc.).Each state within the range of the Neosho mucket has a variety of laws and guidelines (e.g., 37 forestry best management practices) which are intended to minimize non-point sources, however, the efficiency at which these regulations work can vary depending on the strength of the regulation, enforcement capabilities, and other factors. Often the inadequacy of these regulations or their enforcement can lead to stream impacts which may affect the Neosho mucket. The Neosho mucket is protected under Kansas and Oklahoma State laws as an endangered species.The Illinois River in Oklahoma is a State-designated mussel sanctuary, and no mussel harvest is allowed. The species is not protected in Arkansas and Missouri, beyond general mussel harvest laws. There is currently no requirement within the scope of Federal environmental laws to specifically consider the Neosho mucket during Federal activities, or to ensure that Federal projects will not jeopardize its continued existence.

Current Conservation Efforts: The Missouri Department of Conservation is working to artificially propagate Neosho muckets for population augmentation and reintroduction.

The Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks has developed a State recovery plan for the Neosho mucket and three other rare mussel species.E. Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence.

The Neosho mucket is now limited to four drainage populations:

the Neosho, Verdigris, Illinois, and Spring River drainages.

Each is isolated from the others by one or more major impoundments and by extended reaches of degraded river habitat. Isolation renders the four extant drainage populations vulnerable to random catastrophic events (e.g., flood scour, drought, toxic spills, etc.). During the 2000 drought, the Fall River population of Neosho mucket was severely stressed and threatened by low flow conditions and low dissolved oxygen concentrations (in litt. 2000 cited in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service candidate assessment form).Limited range also makes these isolated populations vulnerable to land use changes that would result in increases in non-point source pollution impacts within occupied watersheds.

Isolation also prevents emigration or immigration between populations in response to adverse or positive environmental changes, and increases the deleterious effects of inbreeding.

Recent collections indicate that Neosho mucket recruitment is limited (Mather 1990, Harris 1998, Obermeyer et al. 1997a; Vaughn 1995, 1996, 1997). All extant populations of the Neosho mucket are currently dominated by older aged cohorts, and juvenile muckets are rare. It is currently unknown if recruitment rates offset mortality rates in any population.

REFERENCES Barnhart, M.C., and A. Roberts. 1997. Reproduction and fish hosts of unionids from the Ozark uplifts. Pp. 15-20 In: K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.S. Mayer, and T.J. Naimo (eds.)Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels II. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, IL.38 Box, J.B. and J. Mossa. 1999. Sediment, land use, and freshwater mussels: prospects and problems.

J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 18(1):99-117.

Busby; W.H. and C. Vaughn in NatureServe Explorer:

An online encyclopedia of life [web application].

2001. Version 1.6. Arlington, Virginia, USA: NatureServe.

Available:

http://www.natureserve.

org/explorer.

Cope, C.H. 1979. Survey of the Unionidae considered for conservation status in Kansas. Kansas Game and Fish Commission, Pratt. 39,pp.Cope, C.H. and D.A. Distler. 1985. Assessment of unionid mussel beds in the Spring River Basin. Project Completion Report, Contract No. 40. Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks. 96 pp.Dennis, S.D. 1984. Distributional analysis of the freshwater mussels of the Tennessee River system, with special reference to possible limiting effects of siltation.

Ph.D. Dissertation, VPI & SU, Blacksburg, Virginia, 171 pp.Ellis, M.M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments.

Ecology 17:29-42.Harris, J.L. 1998. Status survey of Lampsilis rafinesqueana Frierson, the Neosho Mucket, in Arkansas.

Revised Draft Final Report. Little Rock, AR.Harris, J.L., and M.E. Gordon. Distribution and status of rare and endangered mussels (Mollusca:

Margaritiferidae, Unionidae) in Arkansas.

Proceedings Arkansas Academy of Science 41:49-56.Hartfield, P. 1993. Headcuts and their effect on freshwater mussels. Pp. 131441 In: K.S.Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, and L.M. Koch (eds.) Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, IL.Kanehl, P. and J. Lyons. 1992. Impacts of in-stream sand and gravel mining on stream habitat and fish communities, including a survey on the Big Rib River, Marathon County, Wisconsin.

Research Report 155. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Madison, WS.Kansas Department of Health and Environment.

1994. Surface water and groundwater quality summaries for major river basins in Kansas, 1990-93. Kansas Department of Health and Environment.

Topeka, Kansas. 24 pp Mather, C.M. 1990. Status survey of the western fanshell and the Neosho mucket in Oklahoma.Final Report to Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma City, OK, Project E-7, 22 pp.Metcalf, A.L. 1980. Unionacean mussels, past and present, from six streams in Kansas and 39 Oklahoma.

Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 83:1-19.Negus, C.L. 1966. A quantitative study of growth and production of unionid mussels in the River Thames at Reading. J. Animal Ecol. 35:513-532.

Obermeyer, B.K. 1999. Draft Recovery Plan for four freshwater mussels in southeast Kansas: Neosho mucket, Ouachita kidneyshell, rabbitsfoot, western fansheUi.

Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, Pratt, KS. 88 pp.Obermeyer, B.K., D.R. Edds, C.W. Prophet, and E.J. Miller. 1997a. Freshwater mussels in the Verdigris, Neosho, and Spring River basins of Kansas and Missouri, with emphasis on species of concern. Amer. Malacological Bull. 14(1):41-45.

Obermeyer, B.K., D.R. Edds, E.J. Miller, and C.W. Prophet. 19971. Range reductions of southeast Kansas unionids.

Pages 108-116 In Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels II; Initiatives for the Future.Oesch, R.D. 1984. Missouri naiades, a guide to the mussels of Missouri.

Missouri Department of Conservation.

270 pp.Sparks, B.L. and D.L. Strayer. 1998. Effects of low dissolved oxygen on juvenile Elliptio complanata (Bivalvia:

Unionidae).

J. N. Am. Benthol. Soc. 17(1):129-134.

Turgeon, D.D., J.F. Quinn, Jr., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, F.G. Hochberg, W.G. Lyons, P.M.Mikkelsen, R.J. Neves, C.F.E. Roper, G. Rosenberg, B. Roth, A. Scheltema, F.G.Thompson, M. Vecchione, and J.D. Williams.

1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: mollusks, 2 nd edition. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 26, Bethesda, Maryland.Vaughn, C.C. 1995. Determination of the status and habitat preference of the Neosho mucket in Oklahoma.

Annual Performance Report submitted to Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma City, OK. 7 pp.+ app.Vaughn, C.C. 1996. Determination of the status and habitat preference of the Neosho mucket in Oklahoma.

Annual Performance Report submitted to Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma City, OK. 7 pp.Vaughn, C.C. 1997. Determination of the status and habitat preference of the Neosho mucket in Oklahoma.

Annual Performance Report submitted to Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation, Oklahoma City, OK.Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren, Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1993.Conservation status of freshwater mussels of the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18 (9): 6-22.40 A45 A A BUTLER COUNTY FICUT LOAO M AP F STATUS KEY-THR = Threatened END = Endangered SNC = Species In Need of Conservation CAN = Canidate Listing NA = Not Applicatable

ýTRATE &: EN A GEE MESEC American Burying Beetle Nicrophorus americanus State: END Federal: END Critical Habitat: NO Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus State: THR Federal: THR Critical Habitat: YES Eastern Spotted Skunk Spilogaleputorius State: THR Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NO Skim Curlew Numenius borealis State: END Federal: END Critical Habitat: NO Least Tern Sterna antillarum State: END Federal: END Critical Habitat: NO Peregrine Falcon Falcoperegrinus State: END Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NO Piping Plover Charadrius melodus State: THR Federal: TVR Critical Habitat: NO Sharp Hornsnail Pleurocera acuta State: THR Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NO Snowy Plover Chamadrius alexandrinus State: THR Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NO Topeka Shiner Notropis topeka State: THR Federal: END Critical Habitat: YES Whooping Crane Grus americana State: END Federal: END Critical Habitat: NO.IIPCISI NEE OF CO S R ATO 3 S Black Tern Chlidonias niger State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NA Creeper Mussel Strophitus undulatus State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NA Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis State: SNC Federal: NA

• Critical Habitat: NA Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos

.State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NA Henslow's Sparrow Anrniodramus henslowil State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NA Short-eared Owl Asioflanimeus State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NA Spotted Sucker Minvtrema melanops State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NA Whip-poor-will Camprimulgus vociferus State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat- NA KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PARKS Effective January 2005 Subject to future revisions Yellow-throated Warbler Dendroica dominica State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NA 10 COFFEY COUNTY C L A I STATUS KEY THR = Threatened END = Endangered SNC = Species In Need of Conservation CAN = Canidate Listing NA = Not Applicatable T R ATE E EN AN E D

• I Z P CI American Burying Beetle Nicruphorus americanus State: END Federal: END Critical Habitat: NO Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocepihalus State: THR Federal: THR Critical Habitat: YES Butterfly Mussel Ellipsaria Ulneolaza State: THR Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NOMap Turtle Grapternysgeographica State: THR Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NO--astern Spotted Skunk Spilogaleputorius State: THR Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NO Eskimo Curlew Numenius borealis State: END Federal: END Critical Habitat: NO Flat Floater Mussel Anodonta suborbiculata State: END Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NO Flutedshell Mussel Lasmigona costata State: THR Federal: NA Critical Habitat: YES Least Tern Sterna antillarum State: END Federal: END Critical Habitat: NO Neosho Madtom Noturusplacidus State: THR Federal: THR Critical Habitat: YES Neosho Mucket Mussel Lampsilis rafinesqueana State: END Federal: NA Critical Habitat: YES Ouachita Kidneyshell Mussel Poritobrandiu occidenalis State: THR Federal: NA Critical Habitat: YES Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus State: END Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NO Piping Plover Charadrius melodus State: THR Federal: THR Critical Habitat: NO Rabbitsfoot Mussel Quadrula cylindrica State: END Federal: NA Critical Habitat:.

YES Redspot Chub Nocomis asper State: THR Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NO Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus State: THR Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NO Western Fanshell Mussel Cprogenia aberti State: END Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NO Whooping Crane Grus americana State: END Federal: END Critical Habitat: NO I P CE IN NEE OF CO S R ATO ()-Black Tern Chlidonias niger State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NA Blue Sucker Cycleptus elongatus State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat:.

NA Bobolink Dolichonyx orvzivorus State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NA Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat:.

NA Fawnsfoot Mussel Truncilla donaciformis State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NA Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NA Gravel Chub Erimystaxx-punctatus State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat:.

NAMole Cricket Giyllotalpa major State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat. NA KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PARKS Effective January 2005 Subject to future revisions Short-eared Owl Asioflammes State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat:.NA Spike Mussel Elliptio dilatata State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NA Wabash Pigtoe Mussel Fusconaiaflava State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NA Wartyback Mussel Quadrula nodultaa State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NA Washboard Mussel Megalonaias nervosa State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NA Whip-poor-will Camprinmulgus vociferus State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NA 19 GREENWOOD COUNTY CONT LOAO MA I STATUS KEY THR = Threatened END = Endangered SNC = Species In Need of Conservation CAN Canidate Listing NA = Not Applicatable TRATEE & ENDAN E D (TE)PEI American Burying Beetle Nicmphorus americanus State: END Federal: END Critical Habitat- NO Bald Eagle Halaeeuis leucocephalus State: THR Federal: THR .Critical Habitat: YES Butterfly Mussel Ellipsaria lineolata State: THR Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NO.om mon Map TurtleGrapiemyvsgeographica State: THR Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NO-astern Spotted Skunk Spilogaleputorius State: THR Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NO Eskimo Curlew Numenius borealis State: END Federal: END Critical Habitat: NO Flutedshell Mussel Lasmigona costata State: THR Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NO Least Tern Sterna antillarum State: END Federal: END Critical Habitat: NO Neosho Mucket Mussel Lampsilis rafinesqueana State: END Federal: NA. Critical Habitat: YES Ouachita Kidneyshell Mussel P~tdobrandws occidentalis State: THR Federal: NA Critical Habitat YES Peregrine Falcon Falcoperegrnus State: END Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NO Piping Plover Charadrius melodus State: THR Federal: THR Critical Habitat- NO Rabbitsfoot Mussel Quadrula :.lindrica State: END Federal: NA Critical Habitat NO Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus State: THR Federal: NA Critical Habitat NO Topeka Shiner Notrmpis topeka State: THR Federal: END Critical Habitat YES Western Fanshell Mussel Cvprogenia aberti State: END Federal: NA Critical Habitat. YES Whooping Crane Grus americana State: END Federal: END Critical Habitat: NO SPCE N EDO COSERATO (SN Black Tern Chlidonias niger State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NA Bobolink Dolichonvx oirvzivorus State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NA Brindled Madtom Noturus miurus State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NA Crawfish Frog Rana areolata State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NA Eastern Hognose Snake Heterodonplatirhinos State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NA Fanklin's Ground Squirrel Spermophilusfranklinii State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NA Golden Eagle Aquila chrvsaeros State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NA nslow's Sparrow Animodrainus henslawii W tate: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NA KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PARKS Effective January 2005 Subject to future revisions Plains Minnow Hybognathus placitus State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat* NA Short-eared OwlAsio flamnmus State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat: NA Western Hognose Snake Heterodon nasicus State: SNC Federal: NA Critical Habitat NA 40 LEAST TERN / Species Information

/ Threatened and Endangered Species / Threatened a... Page 1 of 2 E' Email Page*LEAST TERN (Sterna antillarum)

KANSAS: Endangered FEDERAL: Endangered Photo by Bob Gress SPECIES DESCRIPTION This smallest of the North American terns is 8-10 inches long with a wingspread of about 20 inches. The adult is white below and grayish above with a black cap and white forehead.

The leading edge of the wing primaries is also black. Least Terns are summer residents in Kansas. Nesting birds have been recorded in six central and western Kansas counties, Jeffery Energy Center and along the Kansas River. Terns require barren areas near water such as saline flats in salt marshes, sand bars in river beds, and shores of large impoundments.

A dependable food supply of small fish and aquatic crustaceans must be nearby. Least Terns may occur accidentally or occasionally as transients anywhere in the state. The marked counties are the only ones for which* reliable records are known..SPECIES PROTECTION AND CRITICAL HABITATS LeastLTern 49.58 kB Map Key Least Terns are protected by the Kansas Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act, the Federal Endangered Species Act, and state and federal regulations applicable to those acts. Any time a project is proposed that will likely impact the critical habitats designated below, the project sponsor must contact the Environmental Services Section, Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks, 512 SE 25th Ave., Pratt, Kansas 67124-8174. Department personnel can then advise the project sponsor on permit requirements under Kansas statutes.Sponsors of project impacting Least Tern habitats must also contact the Endangered Species Specialist, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, 315 Houston Street, Suite E, Manhattan, Kansas 66502.DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITATS As defined by Kansas Administrative Regulations, critical habitats include those areas documented as currently supporting self-sustaining population(s) of any threatened or endangered species of wildlife as well as those areas determined by the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks to be essential for the conservation of any threatened or endangered species of wildlife.http://www.kdwp.state.ks.us/news/layout/set/print/content/view/full12630 5/16/2005 LEAST TERN / Species Information

/ Threatened and Endangered Species / reatenec a... rage L 01 ., Currently, the following areas are designated critical for Least Terns: (1 ) All lands and waters within the current active main stem channel of those reaches of the Cimarron River located in Clark, Comanche, and Meade counties.(2) All lands and waters within the boundaries of Cheyenne Bottoms Wildlife Area in Barton County.(3) All lands and waters within Quivira National Wildlife Refuge in Stafford, Reno, and Rice counties.(4) In Pottawatomie County, all lands and water within 5 miles of the Jeffrey Energy Center, Secs. 6 & 7, T9S, R12E) and (Secs. 1, 12, T9s, R11E).(5) All the waters within a corridor along the main stem of the Kansas River from the confluence of the Smoky Hill River and Republican River on Fort Riley in Geary County to the confluence of the Missouri River in Kansas City, Wyandotte County. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has authority to designate areas of critical habitat for federally listed endangered species, but has not done so for Least Terns in Kansas.This Page was Last Updated: Thursday December 23 2004 eZ publishTM copyright ) 1999-2004 eZ systems as http://www.kdwp.state.ks.us/news/layout/set/print/content/view/full/2630 5/16/2005 PIPING PLOVER Charadrius melodus 8AN MA STATUS KANSAS: Threatened FEDERAL: Threatened I MAP KEY 'I Probable Historic Range SKnown Historic Range Designated Critical Habitat K SPECIES DESCRIPTION The Piping Plover is a small (6-7 inches long) whitish plover the color of dry sand. It has a narrow black band above the forehead which reaches from eye to eye, a complete or incomplete dark ring around the neck, and yellow legs. In summer, the bill is yellow with a dark tip. In winter bill and legs are dark.Piping Plovers are rare migrants through Kansas. They require sparsely vegetated shallow wetlands and open beaches and sandbars adjacent to or within streams and impoundments.

Nesting has been recorded on sand bars along the Kansas River.Piping Plovers may occur occasionally anywhere in the state where suitable habitat is found. The marked counties are the only ones or which observation records are known.SPECIES PROTECTION AND CRITICAL HABITATS Piping Plovers are protected by the Kansas Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act, the Federal Endangered Species Act, and state and federal regulations applicable to those acts. Any time an eligible project is pro-posed that will impact the species' pre-ferred habitats within its probable range, the project sponsor must contact the Environmental Services Section, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, 512 SE 25th Ave., Pratt, Kansas 67124-8174.

Department personnel can then advise the project sponsor on per-mit requirements under Kansas'statutes.

Sponsors of projects impacting Piping Plover habitats must also contact the Endangered Species Specialist, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, 315 Houston Street, Suite E, Manhattan, Kansas 66502.DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITATS As defined by Kansas Administrative Regulations, critical habitats include those areas doc-umented as currently supporting self-sustaining population(s) of any threatened or endangered species of wildlife as well as those areas determined by the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks to be essential for the conservation of any threatened or endangered species of wildlife.Currently, the following areas are designated critical for Piping Plovers: All the waters within a corridor along the main stem of the Kansas River from the conflu-ence of the Smoky Hill River and Republican River on Fort Riley in Geary County to the con-fluence of the Missouri River in Kansas City, Wyandotte County.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has authority to designate areas of critical habitat for fed-erally listed threatened species, but has not done so for Piping Plovers in Kansas.KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PARKS Effective January 2000 Subject to future revisions 42 WHOOPING CRANE Grus americana I RAG MA F STATUS I KANSAS: Endangered FEDERAL: Endangered I MAP KEY I Probable Historic Range Known Historic Range Designated Critical Habitat U SPECIES DESCRIPTION The Whooping Crane is the tallest (5 ft.) North American bird and has a 7-8 foot wing spread. Adults are white with black wing tips and a red face. Young may be whitish gray with rusty wash color on their head and neck and scattered reddish brown feathers over their back and sides.Whooping Cranes are regular spring and fall transients through Kansas, generally passing through the marked corridor in March-April and October-November.

Occurrences outside the marked corridor have been infrequent but as crane populations increase, such , sightings may become more frequent.Preferred resting areas are wetlands in level to moderately rolling terrain away from human activity where low, sparse vegetation per-Premits ease of movement and an open view. During migration, cranes feed on grain, frogs, crayfish, grasshoppers, fish, crickets, spiders, and aquatic plants.SPECIES PROTECTION AND CRITICAL HABITATS Whooping Cranes are protected by the Kansas Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act, the Federal Endangered Species Act, and state and federal regulations applicable to those acts. Any time an eligible project is pro-posed that will impact the species' pre-ferred habitats within its probable range, the project sponsor must contact the Environmental Services Section, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, 512 SE 25th Ave., Pratt, Kansas 67124-8174.

Department persdnnel can then advise the project sponsor on per-mit requirements under Kansas'statutes.

Sponsors of projects impacting critical Whooping Crane habitats must also contact the Endangered Species Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, A15 Houston Street, Suite E, Manhattan, ansas 66502.DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITATS As defined by Kansas Administrative Regulations, critical habitats include those areas doc-umented as currently supporting self-sustaining population(s) of any threatened or endangered species of wildlife as well as those areas determined by the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks to be essential for the conservation of any threatened or endangered species of wildlife.Currently, the following areas are designated critical for Whooping Cranes: (1) All lands and waters within Cheyenne Bottoms Wildlife Area located east of U.S.Highway 281 and north of U.S. Highway 56 in Barton County.(2) All lands and waters within Quivira National Wildlife Refuge in Stafford, Reno, and Rice counties.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has authority to designate areas of critical habitat for fed-erally listed endangered species and has designated the following in Kansas: Areas of land, water, and airspace with the following components:

(1) Quivira National Wildlife Refuge in Stafford, Reno, and Rice counties; (2) Cheyenne Bottoms State Waterfowl Management Area in Barton County. (50CFR17.95)

KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PARKS Effective January 2000 Subject to future revisions 64 LEAST TERN Sterna antillarum RAG MA I STATUS KANSAS: Endangered FEDERAL: Endangered SPECIES DESCRIPTION I~~ MA E j Probable Historic Range SKnown Historic Range Designated Critical Habitat.SPECIES DESCRIPTION This smallest of the North American terns is 8-10 inches long with a wingspread of about 20 inches. The adult is white below and grayish above with a black cap and white forehead.

The leading edge of the wing primaries is also black.Least Terns are summer residents in Kansas. Nesting birds have been recorded in six central and western Kansas counties, Jeffery Energy Center and along the Kansas River. Terns require barren areas near water such as saline flats in salt marshes, sand bars in river beds, and shores of large impoundments.

A dependable food supply of small fish and aquatic crustaceans must be nearby.Least Terns may occur accidentally or occasionally as transients anywhere in the state. The marked counties are the only ones for W records are known.Ywhich reliable records are known.SPECIES PROTECTION AND DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITATS rRITI'Al I-ARITATC.

Least Terns are protected by the Kansas Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act, the Federal Endangered Species Act, and state and federal regulations applicable to those acts. Any time a project is proposed that will likely impact the critical habitats designated below, the project sponsor must contact the Environmental Services Section, Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks, 512 SE 25th Ave., Pratt, Kansas 67124-8174.

Department personnel can then advise the project sponsor on permit requirements under Kansas statutes.

Sponsors of project impacting Least Tern habitats must also contact the Endangered Species Specialist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 315 Houston Street, Suite E, Manhattan, Kansas 66502.As defined by Kansas Administrative Regulations, critical habitats include those areas doc-umented as currently supporting self-sustaining population(s) of any threatened or endangered species of wildlife as well as those areas determined by the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks to be essential for the conservation of any threatened or endangered species of wildlife.Currently, the following areas are designated critical for Least Terns: (1) All lands and waters within the current active main stem channel of those reaches of the Cimarron River located in Clark, Comanche, and Meade counties.(2) All lands and waters within the boundaries of Cheyenne Bottoms Wildlife Area in Barton County.(3) All lands and waters within Quivira National Wildlife Refuge in Stafford, Reno, and Rice counties.(4) In Pottawatomie County, all lands and water within 5 miles of the Jeffrey Energy Center.(Sees. 6 & 7, T9S, R12E) and (Sees. 1, 12, T9S, RI 1E).(5) All the waters within a corridor along the main stem of the Kansas River from the con-fluence of the Smoky Hill River and Republican River on Fort Riley in Geary County to the confluence of the Missouri River in Kansas City, Wyandotte County.The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has authority to designate areas of critical'habitat for fed-erally listed endangered species, but has not done so for Least Terns in Kansas.KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PARKS Effective January 2000 32 Subject to future revisions A48 U.S. Fish & Wildlhe Service Questions and Answers about the Topeka Shiner 1) What is a Topeka shiner?The Topeka shiner is a small minnow, normally less than 3 inches long. It is silvery-green with a distinct dark stripe preceding the dorsal fin and a dusky stripe along the entire length of the fish.The scales above this line are outlined with dark pigment, appearing cross-hatched, while the scales below this line have no pigment, appearing silvery-white in color.2) What is the range of the Topeka shiner?The Topeka shiner's historic range included parts of Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota. It is still present in these states, but exists only in small, isolated populations in a significant portion of its current range.3) Where do Topeka shiners live?Topeka shiners live in small to mid-size prairie streams in the central United States where they are usually found in pooi and run areas. Suitable streams tend to have good water quality and cool to moderate temperatures.

Many of these streams have year-round flow, although some may become dry during summer or periods of prolonged drought. Occasionally, Topeka shiners are found in larger streams that are downstream of large populations.

In Iowa, Minnesota, and portions of South Dakota, Topeka shiners also live in oxbows and off-channel pools.4) Why is the Topeka shiner declining?

The Topeka shiner was once a common fish throughout its range but its presence has declined by about 70 percent at known collection sites during the last 40 to 50 years. Habitat destruction, sedimentation, and changes in water quality are thought to have caused the population decline.Also, the creation of impoundments on small prairie streams that were stocked with predaceous fish like the largemouth reduced Topeka shiner numbers.I

5) What activities harm Topeka shiner habitat?development and degradation of streams in-stream gravel mining changes in the stream hydrology stream channelization projects dam construction and development destruction of off-channel habitats, such as oxbows 6) What is being done to protect the Topeka shiner?Measures to protect the Topeka shiner include: Listing: The Topeka shiner is listed as an endangered species throughout its range (parts of Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota).Recovery Plans: The Service is developing a recovery plan that describes and prioritizes actions necessary to conserve the Topeka shiner.Research:

Several university and private researchers and Federal and State biologists are researching the needs of the Topeka shiner. The results of their studies will help us manage thespecies and its habitat.Management and Habitat Protection:

State and private organizations are working to create protection and management plans to ensure the recovery of the fish. The state of Missouri has developed a comprehensive management plan, which focuses efforts on conserving Topeka shiners in the state. In Minnesota, the Department of Natural Resources and the Service have cooperated to develop a list of Best Management Practices for projects that take place in and along streams occupied by Topeka shiners. South Dakota has completed a Topeka shiner State Management Plan. In Kansas, the Topeka shiner is State-listed as a threatened species and the State has designated its own critical habitat for the species.7) What protection does the Topeka shiner currently receive as a listed species?The ESA prohibits the import, export, or interstate or foreign sale of protected animals and plants without a special permit. Under the ESA, take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.The ESA requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service to conserve listed species and ensure that any activity they fund, authorize, or carry out will not jeopardize the continued survival and recovery of a listed species or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat. The ESA also directs all Federal agencies to use their existing authorities to develop and carry out programs to conserve endangered and threatened species.The Service may issue permits for activities that are otherwise prohibited under the ESA, if these activities are for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of the affected species, or fortake that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities.

2

8) What can I do to conserve Topeka shiners?There are a number of things that landowners and others can do to conserve Topeka shiners, including:

restoring stream habitats placing vegetated buffers along streams (e.g., by managing livestock access to streambanks) revegetating exposed, eroding banks conserving soil throughout watersheds avoiding or reducing direct impacts to streams and oxbows The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil and Water Conservation Districts, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and State conservation agencies can assist landowners with the funding and implementation of projects to conserve Topeka shiners and their stream habitats.9) Where can I get more information on the Topeka Shiner and critical habitat?For general information on Topeka shiners and the designation of critical habitat contact Vernon Tabor at the Kansas Ecological Services Field Office, at the above address; telephone 785/539-3474; facsimile 785/539-8567.

For local information on Topeka shiners in your state, contact one of the Service field offices below: Columbia, Missouri Ecological Services Field Office.101 Park Deville Dr., Suite A Columbia, MO 65203 tel: 573/234-2132 Rock Island, Illinois Ecological Services Field Office (for Iowa information) 4469 48th Avenue Court Rock Island, IL 61201 tel: 309/793-5800 Phil Delphey Twin Cities, Minnesota Ecological Services Field Office 4101 East 80'h Street Bloomington, MN 55425 tel: 612/725-3548 ext. 206 3 A49 f0 A.MFCREEK 1 NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION Robert C. Hagan Vice President Nuclear Assurance December 22, 1992 NA 92-0137 United States Fish and Wildlife Service.Post Office Box 25486 Denver Federal Center Denver, Colorado 8025 Attention:

Mr. Max Schroeder

Subject:

1992 Activities and Renewal Request of Threatened Neosho Madtom Subpermit

Dear Mr. Schroeder:

The purpose of this letter is to report 1992 activities and request renewal of Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation's threatened Neosho Madtom subpermit 91-27 under authority of PRT-704930.

Due to flooding conditions in the Neosho River during November and December, we were unable to complete seining activities to the extent originally intended.

We were 1y able6to seine in one gravel riffle area on December 15, 1992 at the Burlington city dam in the SE 1/4 of 23-21-15 in Coffey County, Kansas. We did not capture any madtoms during three kick-seine hauls with a 6' x 15' straight seine with 1/4 inch mesh.Renewal of this permit is requested for 1993. We intend to continue environmental monitoring of the Neosho River as in the past and expect to incidentally catch Neosho madtoms. There will be no changes to the schedule, methods, or justifications presented in our application for subpermit 91-27.If you need more information or have questions, please feel free to contact Brad Loveless or Dan Haines at (316) 364-4168.Very truly yours, Robert C. Hagan /.Vice President Nuclear Assurance.RCH/tlr cc: William H. Gill (State Supervisor, Fish and Wildlife Service)P.O. Box 411/ Burlington, KS 66839/ Phone: (316) 3 .4-8831 An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/HCN.ET A50 0 a 1AwA//ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ROUTING FORM OUTGOING CORRESPONDENCE A. No. ET 92-0022 Date 1-3.092 -(42Responsible Person Dan Haines To: Bill Hlavachick From: Forrest T. Rhodes B.

Subject:

Comfments:

1991 Conditional Wildlife Permit Report and 1992 Renewal Application C. copy to Records Management (WC-DS): D. personal Copies Name R. C. Hagan (MS2-01), w/a D. E. Haines (WC-TR), w/a B. S. Loveless (WC-TR), w/a K_ J. Moles (MS2-01), w/a Yes -_x No Name A. E. Wessel (WC-ETS).

w/a E. pvt in TE File No.F .SI:1~~, 122- / ý I; -->

FO',I KLF-L07 Rev. 2/4 0 WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION TRANSMITTAL CONCURRENCE

/ SIGNOFF SHEET 4 1. Letter No. ET 92-0022 Date Response Due: 1-31-92 (x] Required [ ] Requested 2.

Subject:

1991 Conditional Wildlife Permit Report and 1992 Renewal Application

3. Responsible Organization(s):

Environmental Management

4. Responsible Regulatory Services Individual:

Dan Haines ext.: 5140 5. Commitments contained in letter: [x] YES L 2 NO If YES, list below: Transmit copy of renewed USFWS Threatened Species Permit to KDWP when received.6. Remarks / comments: Date Received 7. Technical Review and Concurrence Signature Date Manager Regulatory Services Am* Comments generated during review of the attached documents have been resolved and the document is ready for transmittal to the NRC.6. Executive Review and Concurrence

[ ] V.P. -Operations 3 V.P. -Eng. & Tech. Services[ Director Quality[]Date Received Signature Date OCREEK OPERATING CORPOFRATION Forrest T. Rhodes Vice President Engineering

& Technical Services January 30, 1992 ET 92-0022 Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks Fisheries and Wildlife Division RR #2, Box 54A Pratt, KS 67124 Attention:

Mr. Bill Hlavachick

Subject:

1991 Conditional Wildlife Permit Report and 1992 Renewal Application

Dear Mr. Hlavachick:

The purpose of this letter is to report 1991,Conditional Wildlife Permit#SC-067-91 activities by Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation and to renew this permit for 1992. First, please find the report forms attached.Most fish used for radioisotopic monitoring were sent to a private laboratory for analysis.

The remainder wer~e given to the Kansas Department of Health and Environment under the Power Plant Monitoring Act.Second, please find a renewal application and a c permit. Subpermittees are listed on the application and will carry a copy of the permit when conducting permitted activities.

The renewal application requests that activities as they relate to the incidental capture of the threatened Neosho madtom be permitted.

As you are aware these activities during 1991 were completed as allowed by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service permit PRT-704930, subpermit 91-27. We have requested renewal of this federal permit for similar work in 1992 and this renewal request is attached for your benefit. A copy of the renewed federal permit will be sent to you for your files when received..

If there are any questions, please contact Brad Loveless or Dan Haines at (316) 364-4168.Very truly yours, Forrest T. Rhodes Vice President Engineering

& Technical Services FTR/tlr Attachments (2)P.O. Box 411 / Burlington, KS 66639 i Phone: (316) 364-8831 An Equal Opportunity Employer MIF/HCVET tachment to ET YZ-UUZ APPLICATI R SCIENTIFIC, EDUCATION, OR ITION PERMIT (Collecting and Salvage)Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks Fisheries and Wildlife Division RR #2 Box 54A Pratt KS 67124 FEE: $5.50 PLEASE COMPLETE FULLY AND IN DETAIL.() NEW (X) RENEWAL Name of Applicant Brad S.. Loveless for Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation.Address P.O. Box 411, Burlington, KS 66839 Date 1-6-92 Phone Number (316),364-4168 Species to be collected, etc. (common names)See Attachment Number of specimens involved See'Attachment Major area of activity See Attachment Anticipated dates of activity See Attachment

• te specific purpose of activity See Attachment Methods of collecting See Attachment Place where specimens are- to be housed See Attachment Federal Permit No.PRT-715225

-Salvage, PRT-704930, subpermit 91-27 Threatened Species (C o n's e'ýý a t i ficer Signature)

This permit, which expires December 31, must be in possession while conducting the above activity.

A $5.00 fee plus a $.50 service charge ($5.50 total) must be submitted with this permit application.

Any applicantdesiring to conduct the above activities on any Department of wildlife and Parks lands must first obtain written permission from the Department in addition to the special permit prior to the initiation of any activities.

FAILUPLE TO COMPLY REVOCA.TION OF THE Don Eccles*Jce Reischmann ece Hobby WITH THE CONDITIONS SET FORTH IN THE PERMIT WILL RESULT IN THE fllDIATE PERMIT. Subpermittees:

Dan Haines Ken Thrall Mark Schreiber Brian Winzenried Dan.Williamson Jeff Walton (Signature of Applicant)

Attachment to Appl'tion For Scientific, Educatio r Exhibition Permit Page I Species to be Collected, etc.It is expected that all fish common to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL) and the Neosho River drainage may be sampled. Only those species of commercial or recreational value will be kept for radiological analyses.

These include but are not limited to such fish as largemouth bass, white crappie, white bass, channel catfish, buffalo, and carp.Game bird and game mammal samples for radiological isotope analyses will be taken from readily obtainable species common to the Coffey County area.These include eastern cottontail, fox squirrel, white-tailed deer, greater prairie chicken, and northern bobwhite quail.Salvage specimens will include wounded or dead nonendangered migratory birds which consist of, but are not limited to, various waterfowl,.

raptors, and other waterbirds subject to the conditions and requirements of WCNOC's Federal Fish and Wildlife Permit #PRT-715225.

Number of Specimens Involved Only enough will be -collected to complete ýbiological and radiological environmental monitoring programs and facilitate the management of the WCCL fishery. The quantity of specimens to be handled is as follows: Fisheries study: Because of the quantitative nature of the gear types to be employed, the number of specimens

.involved will depend upon the. concentration and species composition of fish present at the time of sampling.

An adequate number of specimens will be sampled to accurately assess the fish populations in WCCL and if necessary, in the Neosho River in the vicinity of Wolf Creek Generating Station.Radiological/Environmental:

Enough fish will be kept to satisfy Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)radiological/environmental monitoring requirements.

Each sample will consist of the minimum number of individual fish needed to yield 500-1000 grams of boneless flesh. The number and kind of samples needed will not exceed one sample of all commercially or recreationally important species monthly. These will be collected from WCCL and the Neosho River.

Page 2 Game bird and game mammal samples will be collected annually.

Each sample will consist of the minimum number of specimens needed to yield 500-1000 grams of boneless flesh. If available, road-killed birds and mammals will be used. Deer will not be collected unless a road kill, is available from the appropriate areas or arrangements can be made with local legal hunters.Maior Area of Activities Most of the sampling will occur in central Coffey County in the vicinity of WCCL and along the Neosho River. Major collecting.

locations on the Neosho River are immediately upstream (NW 1/4 of 12-22-15) and downstream (SE 1/4 of 12-22-15) of the Wolf Creek confluence.

Work will also be completed at the Burlington City Dam (SW 1/4 of 23-21-15) and- in the tailwater area of John Redmond Reservoir (W 1/2 of 9-21-15, and E 1/2 of 10-21-15).

Monitoring will also be done on the Neosho River in southeastern Lyon County (S 1/2 10-20-13 and NE 1/4 15-20-13) near Hartford.Game bird and mammal samples will be collected immediately north of the power plant in 6-21-16 and southeast in 16-21-16 and 17-21-16.

Control samples will be collected in the vicinity of Hartford in east-central Lyon or west-central Coffey Counties on legal public hunting lands or on private property with consent from the landowner.

Purpose of Activity The purpose of monitoring the. cooling lake fishery is to provide data for making management decisions to reduce gizzard shad impingement problems and enhance station operability as a result. The WCCL monitoring programs will also provide adequate baseline data with which operational events can be compared in order to assess impacts. These involve both terrestrial and aquatic populations in the vicinity of WCCL.A major purpose of the monitoring program on the Neosho- River will be to determine the distribution and population density of the Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea).

Because habitats are similar and collection gears will not discriminate, it is expected that various fishes including the Neosho madtom may be captured.

Although this species will no longer be targeted, incidental catches will be recorded to document continued presence or absence above and below the Wolf Creek confluence.

All will be immediately released alive to the river. All activities with regard to the threatened Neosho madtom will be performed in accordance with Federal Threatened Species..

Permit PRT-704930, subpermit 91-27 and Eubsequent renewals.

Page 3 Collecting recreationally or commercially valuable fish species for the radiologicallenvironmental studies will monitor operational radiological levels in the area of the power plant. Fish from the Neosho River, chiefly from the John Redmond tailwaters, will be used as control samples. Game bird and game mammal sampling will be used, as with the fish, to determine operational baseline data on potential pathways to humans of radiological isotopes.Salvage investigation of wildlife mortality on the power plant grounds will be done to assess operational impacts to wildlife.

This may include temporary possession of dead or wounded birds,. chiefly migratory, that collide with station transmission lines or other facilities.

These investigations will help determine proper mitigative strategies if excessive mortality develops.Dates of Activity The following table shows completed.

the time periods when the work is expected to be 1991 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Rad/Env. Fish Sample Collection Rad/Env. Game Sample Collection Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Monitoring X X X X x X, X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Asiatic Clam Monitoring x X X Salvage/incidental mortality investigation X X X X X X X X X X X X a Page 4 Methods of Collection The following equipment will be used to collect samples: Wolf Creek Cooling Lake: 6 x 50 foot bag seine with 1/4 inch mesh 6 x 15 foot straight seine with 1/8 inch mesh 8 x 100 foot monofilament gill nets w/l.0 inch mesh 8 x 100 foot monofilament gill nets w/l.5 inch mesh 8 x 100 foot monofilament gill nets w/2.5 inch mesh 8 x 100 foot monofilament gill nets w/4.0 inch mesh Large frame modified fyke nets Variable voltage AC/DC boat mounted shocker Otter trawl Neosho River: 6 x 50 foot bag seine with 1/4 inch mesh 6 x 15-20 foot straight seine with 1/8'! inch mesh Variable voltage AC/DC boat mounted shocker Required game birds and game mammals wiil be collected using shotguns or .22-caliber rifles in the most efficient manner feasible for taking the sample.Place Where Specimens are to be Housed Fish collected during monitoring will be weighed and measured and returned to the water or disposed of properly.

Voucher specimens may be preserved and stored in the Environmental Management laboratory in the Dwight D.Eisenhower Nuclear Training Center at Wolf Creek Generating Station. No Neosho madtoms will be kept.- All radiological/environmental samples will be kept in the same lab before being shipped to contracted analytical laboratories.

SC-067-91 Permit Number.'..

SCIENTIFIC, EDUCATION;

ORh EXhDITION PERMIT REPORT FORM (Collecting and.Salvage)

Page 1 of 5 WCNOC Prmnit Hlolder N~ame Date of Each Number &"Species.

Handled Give .each:.'collectioA.'n.[locatio.n'.including legal DispoSition of Specimens Collection description" (Quarte4riý-,ection,,.township, and (Include Museum Voucher Month/Day NO. Specrange numbers,.

aid.'County),...:

.- .Numbers,..if applicable) ies (Common__Name)__-*.range____

4 /'I f't 4L" LIr~~All specimens returned to WCLL"niacoz nnfoil ntharwmic 6 A...... , "...: " ' "3 used for radioisotopic 6.Comm*on car: .... a... .:" analyses 11 Golden shiner .., .................................................

.-......-'; ......________ 503 Red shiner-. _.- ___.:, _:-.. _____._.--__.-.__,._":,._,...i_._",",._,__....___....._:.

20 Ghost shiner "- ." ,.-. " ..50 Bullhead minnow """," *""__, .-.'3 3 Fathead mihnow ...' ~I ... , ..2 used for radioisotppic 50 Smallmhouth buffalo -_____';"-'_________.....__"_""_'__analyses" .41 Bigmouth buffalo..6 Yellow bullhead '" "-.. ."_"_._.,:".,_...._" ." ana.--5 used fors radioisotopi 124 Channel catfish --, .-, -. , .5nused_ _, 4 Blue catfish of 16 -C\j o____,, _______ 32 Flathead catfish I-. ?. , .q .,.~~~~6 Blackstrine_

_ tonminnow I """ """'4':"" " " u-i" 394Brooksver9 Moeito fish":""___________394 Brook silve'rsides

___________________________________

w 2~W.Z~)551* .. .... ..... .12 used for radioisotopic Rf 'P'White bass analvses w 0 SC-067-91 Permit Number SCIENTIFIC, 'EDUCATION, '-'OR .:E-XIIIBITION.

PERMIT REPORT FORM (Collecting:

and*Salvage)

.. ... .' .< ': :' .::., ...:: ', ,' ..., Page 2 of 5 WCNOC Permit 11older Name Date of.Each Number &Species.

llandled Give each'.collcctLion

'ocato*n.

including legal Disposition of Spccincs Collection

.. description'(Quarter,tsbction,,, township, and (Include Museum Voucher Month/Day Ho. .Species (Co-on nName) 'range.n :"." Numbers if applicablc) 1991 4 StriDed bass WolFf Cre~k:-t U4)1,I$All specimens returned to WCCL unless noted otherwiso"I .t. 195 Wiper hybrid*__

,_ -.-,.,._,',..,_........._....._.

.... ..,' ..... .An41 Green sunf "" " :. ,* ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~...............ept .edsnf.........

-.'-..... ..-I.. .;:,, .. .. .45 ..... ... ','}. ."" 9' .-" .:- __________

5 Orangespotted sunfish 563 Bluegill.

."4 .Logear sun 'ish"... ..... 3 Hybrid sunfish-.

.II 334 Smalimouth bass ".242 Largemouth bass 1'64 White crappie " 220 Black crappie "________.__:_____

,_._-..:.__._-:__..__._9 Logperch " " :'.-, I_221 Walleye .__ _ '_ "_ __ ____....__;"_

__.....68 Freshwater drum.. ... ...1W w

• SC-067-91 Permit Number..SCIENTIFIC' EDUCATION.

OR: fEXIIIBITION PERMIT REPORT FORM-. ... (Collecting and 'Salvage)...' .- < , :. < .'-" !... ':.. ."* Page 3 of 5 WCNOC WCNOC Permit H1oldcr Naamc Date of Each Number & Species. Iandled Give.e.ach:coilectionf'l ocatiQn.ifncluding legal Disposition of Specimens Collection.

description.(Quarte r,.4sect.on,,, township, 'and (Include Museum Voucher Month/Day No. Species (Common Name) range numbers'and7Cou y.. .. .... Numbers,.

if applicable)

..* (Common._

Name) .... ..a A 1~: O4~9 Cmz~.1 1vn#-~,i4-h

~ *1. .~.....LlAhn Darfr rfr* i1,A~';NW~1'/A~iI71~4 Cnff0v Cn lJc~pd fnr rRdiniczntnnic

~t-'- I U --; 1 ,. .J.I I IUI I I WJUI...IUI+

L UIU In IU lI *S'..U I I '.S,, ,S .-..-J , Iu[,' , * , ~ , ' v J u , w -... ...v ~ CzM .1 1 rl"~.. .+k Inh Cid* ,ýilAt ".....'f..,.V Co', fn a.n qn 9-19-9 1 2 sma5lmo th u ,, 6 White ilass " 9-19-91 5 White crappie ." ... ......S. .. .Incidental Capture-9 Neoshoosho Ri ver SE61./4, Cboffey_ Co. Returned alive Incidental Capture 11-20-91" 13 Neosho.'r'nadtorm "eosho' River -NW.- 1/4 12-'. S:,ofey Co. Returned alive..........................

..............

.. ..... ...."..: ... ... ... ....."'.. .-r * ~.. ............... .*"...'+.+

..t:,?].:"..-.'

... '0-, -... ...,.V I!

Permit Number SCIENTIFiC$

EDUCATION,"OR

'.EXIIIDITION PERMIT REPORT FORM (Collecting and -Salvage)}

m " ." .' ...' '! ' { ." " ' : ..' ! ." " .[ '. : ,. .* " " Page Z1 of 5 WCNOC Permit H~older Nzinic Date of.Each -Number &'Species.

llandled Give. each':collection'::)location-.including legal Disposition of Specimens Collection

.description"(Quarterjisction, township, and (Include Museum Voucher". ~ ~ ~ ~ e .u , " ""% .,'t' " :" -,.-t.,' " " Month/Day No. Species (Common Name) ,range numbers'.Land-ouy).* G Numbers,.

if applicable)

"__ .. .. ..... .._____ The migratory r6s1'mrid-,a' the- lst'below were..... .. ........ ., ... -....... ....f"___________

_____ ______ handled under411 d 1:-'a Wdlife Service '.__,___....

___Special' Wildlife P-ert minber PRTL-715225

• __

• _-._, *__ .E " ." V ; '... ", : .- -t .: ..'.' : :." .' -B u r i e d 1-2-1 A n e 1/ 7 21 1~-6-'"" C.ffe","n4:-"-

.7- Prbal oe e ls 1 1 1 Ame ic'n~g 'ld ney NE -CProbable.

powerline collision 1-4-91 1 mal. f a' rd'I

• 4 ~ ~ '-.y P"r-i rl 1-17-91-7 Northern bobwhite qt.N E, 16-2-6 ý; n--1-17-91 Eastern cotton'tail NE 'Ai... -...... ......: .... ..

r-t ..1 1-17-91 I 7 ,Northern bobwhite-nfiht.Av--.*

--I Used Forradioisotopic analyses Used for radioisotopic analyses Used for radioisotopic analyses NW 1/4 1'6:"21'-16' a , 1-17-91 2 Eastern cottontail NW 1 -21 16. Coff21.-1un

... ... .--......_ ._*_ _ _ .,uV ,auIui5ULO pic analys.. : ." Unknown caose of deAth 1 Snowy .wl SE 1/4,7-21-16t C .b Cou .nt -Partially scavenqed 3-7-91 1...I American coot NE 1/4 7-21-16', Cfe~ unt :" "Powerline collision, buried 3-14-91 1 American coot NE'1/4 7-21-16, Cof ounty Powerline collision, buried Double-crested

.*.. : 5-15-91 N omrn .NEI/ 70 u':k S1 Icormorant uty Powerline collision, buried 7-23-91 Upland sandpiper NE 1/4 7-21-'16,Cdoffey'County Powerline collision, buried es 9-27,91 32 Brown-headed cowbird" N E 1 A 7. 21 1 A Unknown cause of death t- -t .-".- -.S --inurieu 10-3-91 I .. I Green-winged_'..INE1 owe ne,-collision.b Green-winged teal E.1/47-21-16, Cof-fey Coun~ty Powerline collision, buried SCIENTIFIC-&

EDUCATION, *OR. .fXIIIBITION PERMIT REPORT FORM (Collecting and?,Sailvage)

SC -067-91 " .' ": ; "' __..... .Permit Number .....*Page 5 of 5 WCNOC Pecrmit Holder N~amec Date of.Each Number &"Species..landled Give. each:

legal Disposition-of Specimens Collection-, des cription'!.(Quaitpr

.,sFctLon',,'

Lown~ship.

'and (Include Museuiu Vouchier Month/Day No. --Species (comon Name) range"numbers'and 3 Coun.y)..'

umbers,,.f applicable)

Powerline collision Red-tailed -hawk Donated to Friends Universit 1-A91 1 R gbiled gll NE 1/4 7'. 2 b 6anty Unknown cause of death, buri-13-91 1 American kestrel NE 114

. Trapped in outbuilding, buriE.... .. " .' " .. .I , ". ... .Used for radioisotopic analys 12-19-91 1 White-tailed deer .Incidenta~l.

Sample given to KDHE-4~ 'UsedJ for radioisotopic dnaly-s 12-23 14 Northern bcibwhite 4--1A,"Coffey Co.. 7 given to KDHE 2t'1 ,' ' .. Used for radioisotopic analys 1.2.23-91 s cE 1 24 ;732-14 Coffey.Co.

2 given to KDHE 12-30-91 6- 'Northern bobwh~ite" 'NE 114.6 16,.oe.'ot.:

.Used for radioisotopic analys 12-30-91 2 Eastern cottontail NE 1/4 6-2116. Coffey',oity Uaa 12 CffeyCointy

.Used' for radioisotopic analys 12309 7 otenbbhie N-14'6T21*

16": :Cd" ey!

""ý -Used for r adioisotopic analys, d.d;es es es es es es 12-30-91 2 Eastern cottontail NW I4t6-1-6,CoffeyCouinty Used for radioisotopic analvs...............................

. ... ,.:.";.........

.._........, L

,.A....LF CREEK.'NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION Forrest T Rhodes Vice President Engineering

& Technical Servicel January 10, 1992 ET 92-0004 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service P.O. Box 25486 Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 Attention:

Mr. Max Schroeder

Reference:

Letter ET 91-0174, dated October 7, 1991, from Forrest T. Rhodes (WCNOC) toDan Mulhern (USFWS)

Subject:

Report of Activities and 1992 Renewal Request for Endangered/Threatened Species Permit PRT-704930, Subpermit 91-27

Dear Mr. Schroeder:

._ reporting reuirements and request renewal of Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation's subpermit"--

91-27 under PRT-704930 for the incidental capture of. the threatened Neosho madtom. The following specimens were captured from and released alive to the Neosho River during ecological monitoring performed as stated in our application (see Reference).

Number of Date Number Hauls Habitat Location 11-20-91 18 4 Sand/Gravel Riffle SE 1/4 12-22-15, Coffey County, KS 11-20-91 13 4 Rock/Gravel Riffle NW 114 12-22-15, Coffey County, KS 11-21-91 0 4 Gravel/Cobble Riffle S 1/2 10-20-13, Flat Rocks/Gravel Riffle Lyon County, KS Each haul consisted of kick-seining along approximately six linear meters of riffle habitat with a 6' x 15' straight seine with 1/4 inch mesh. No Neosho.madtoms were killed or injured during our river monitoring activities.

The second purpose of this letter is to request renewal of this threatened species permit to allow similar ongoing monitoring to be completed during 1992. The monitoring activities presented in the reference will be identical as they relate to the Neosho madtom.P.O. Box 411 / Burlincton, KS 66839 / Phone: (316) 364-8831 An Equal Opotunity Employer V/F1HCVET 0 Page 2 ET 92-0004 We hope that the data presented above will be of use in your Neosho madtom recovery efforts.-

If any questions arise, please contact Brad Loveless or Dan Haines at 316 364-4168.Very truly yours, Forrest T. Rhodes Vice President Engineering

& Technical Services FTR/tlr cc: Mr. Dan Mulhern (USFWS)