ML13077A117
| ML13077A117 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 03/14/2013 |
| From: | Belton M US Dept of Interior (DOI) |
| To: | Balsam B Division of License Renewal |
| References | |
| Download: ML13077A117 (16) | |
Text
NRR-PMDAPEm Resource From: Belton, Moni [moni_belton@fws.gov]
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 5:00 PM To: Balsam, Briana
Subject:
South Texas NRC informal consultation Attachments: Attch 1 Houston Toad Survey_Requirements.pdf; Attch 3_ BMP for river, streams or tributary impacts.pdf; Figure 1 Whooping Crane Corridor.pdf; Attch 2_ FWS June_02_2011_letter.pdf
Subject:
ER 12-0888, Review of the Generic Draft Environmental Impact Statement (GDEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 48 regarding South Texas, Units 1 and 2.
Ms. Balsam, On March 4th, via telephone, we discussed the informal consultation regarding the license renewal regarding Units 1 and 2 of the South Texas Project (STP) located in Matagorda County, and associated transmission lines located in Brazoria, Matagorda, Wharton, Fayette, Colorado, Guadalupe, Bexar, Comal, Jackson, Lavaca, Victoria, DeWitt, Gonzales, Karnes, and Wilson Counties, Texas.
As discussed I am providing comments on the current plan submitted for our review, the GDEIS dated November 2012. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) made a determination of may affect, not likely to adversely affect on the following species:
Endangered Houston toad (Bufo houstonensis)
Texas blind salamander (Typhlomolge rathbuni)
Golden-Cheeked Warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia)
Northern Aplomado Falcon (Falco femoralis septentrionalis)
Whooping Crane (Grus amercanan)
Attwaters Greater Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido attwateri)
Black-Capped Vireo (vireo atricapilla) 1
Threatened San Marcos salamander (Eurycea nana)
Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)
Candidate Texas Fatmucket (Lampsilis bracteata),
Smooth Pimpleback (Quadrula houstonensis),
Texas Pimpleback (Quadrula petrina),
Texas Fawnsfoot (Truncilla macrodon).
Additional information is requested regarding these determinations. First, the project area should be evaluated to determine if suitable habitat is present for the above species. If suitable habitat is present then avoidance and minimization measures should be included to support the determination. Direct and indirect impacts should be described in detail. One example we discussed was the Whooping Crane. If suitable habitat is present or if the species is observed on site, what actions will the facility take to ensure avoidance and protection? How will these actions be documented and enforced. The same goes for all species above.
In Section 4.7, protected species and habitats, Table 4-14, the justification submitted states the proposed action would not result in measurable or detectable impacts or reach take. NRC should describe what procedures and/or measures are being taken to insure the proposed action will not result in take.
Provided are additional recommendations for various species.
Houston toad All projects occurring in Colorado County should be evaluated for potential effects to the endangered Houston toad Bufo houstonensis. Recent surveys have indicated the presence of the Houston toad in this county, specifically in woodland areas underlain by pockets of deep sandy soils with pools of water available for breeding. Any work occurring in such areas should be evaluated for potential effects to this species. If suitable habitat is present, a qualified individual should conduct surveys to determine whether a listed species is present. The Services recommended survey methodology (attachment 1) is enclosed for your use. The breeding season for the Houston toad is January 1 through June 1 and any surveys should correspond with this timeframe in order to obtain an accurate determination regarding the presence or absence of this species within your project area.
Whooping Crane 2
Whooping Crane numbers are increasing and the drought has changed some of their movement. The Cranes are documented in places where they have not historically occurred (example Granger Lake, Williamson County).
The Service recommends the below measures be implemented to avoid or minimize potential impacts.
- Schedule work, within the Whooping Crane migration corridor, outside Whooping Crane migrating seasons (normally between March 25 and April 15). See Figure 1, Whooping Crane migration corridor.
- Consider additional measures, such as adding bird diverters, to reduce impacts along transmission lines.
- If it is necessary to perform maintenance work during the migrating season biological monitors may be recommended.
- If using equipment over 15 ft high, lower overnight or mark with diverters.
- Educate staff on the Whooping Crane, status, identification, and habitats.
- In any areas where maintenance is being conducted and Whooping Cranes are sited within 1000 feet cease work and notify the Service of the occurrence.
- Please refer to the additional Whooping Crane guidance in the Services June 2, 2011 letter (attachment 2, Appendix D in the GDEIS).
Freshwater mussels Several candidate species of freshwater mussels may have the potential to occur within your project area.
Candidate species are those being considered for possible listing pursuant to the ESA. While these species are not legally-protected under to the ESA, the Service provides information on these species for consideration in your environmental review process and to encourage efforts to avoid adverse impacts to these species. details best management practices for use during maintenance activities in the project area and along transmission corridors.
Additional species Additional information regarding survey protocols and listed species can be found on the Services website; http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ES_Lists_Main.cfm At your earliest convenience, the Service would like to meet or tele-conference with the NRC to discuss our letters dated June 2, 2011 and February 21, 2013 and continue the informal consultation between our two agencies to minimize and reduce impacts to listed species. If you have any question please contact Moni Belton at 281/286/8282, extension 223. Please refer to consultation number 02ETCL00-2013-I-0068. We look forward to meeting with you in the near future.
Thank you, Moni Belton Moni Belton Fish and Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 17629 El Camino Real #211 Houston TX, 77058 281-286-8282 ext 233 3
4 Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 635 Mail Envelope Properties (CA+Ftegh0-OS4P-HdB-j-LOj=4jp24z_KGCX6NLNx4jOBFtqW1w)
Subject:
South Texas NRC informal consultation Sent Date: 3/14/2013 5:00:18 PM Received Date: 3/14/2013 5:00:28 PM From: Belton, Moni Created By: moni_belton@fws.gov Recipients:
"Balsam, Briana" <Briana.Balsam@nrc.gov>
Tracking Status: None Post Office: mail.gmail.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 6101 3/14/2013 5:00:28 PM Attch 1 Houston Toad Survey_Requirements.pdf 29057 Attch 3_ BMP for river, streams or tributary impacts.pdf 20969 Figure 1 Whooping Crane Corridor.pdf 52448 Attch 2_ FWS June_02_2011_letter.pdf 273754 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:
Recipients Received:
May 16, 2007 United States Fish and Wildlife Service Section 10(a)(1)(A) Scientific Permit Requirements For Conducting Houston Toad Presence/Absence Surveys U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Field Office 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, Texas (512) 490-0057 This document provides guidance on when you might be at risk of taking a Houston toad while conducting presence/absence surveys and when it is advisable to have a Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit issued by the Service under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) to be covered for take. The ultimate decision to apply for a permit is yours. Individuals engaged in activities that have the potential to take listed species are responsible for determining whether the likelihood of take is great enough to need a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit (see When a Section 10(a)(1)(A) Scientific Permit is Needed below for the definition of take).
If you choose to apply for a permit, this document outlines the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services (Service) process and requirements for conducting presence/absence surveys for federally-listed endangered, Houston toad as conditions of holding a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit. Section 10(a)(1)(A) permits, also referred to as recovery, enhancement of survival, or scientific permits, allow for take of listed species that may or will occur while conducting research to further the recovery of a listed species (see When a Section 10(a)(1)(A) Scientific Permit is Needed below). This document outlines methods to be used and information to be included in annual reports for a section 10(a)(1)(A) permit.
The objective of this document is to identify survey methods that will produce sound scientific information upon which to base decisions and actions for the conservation of the Houston toad. Using consistent survey methodology will also allow for greater comparison and analysis of results, and thereby increase our understanding of this species and its habitat requirements. Please note, this document supersedes any previous guidance from the Austin Ecological Services Office on conducting presence/absence surveys for the federally endangered Houston toad. Information that relates to the effectiveness of these survey guidelines in conserving the Houston toad is welcome. We will consider modifications of, or alternatives to, these methods and qualifications on a case-by-case basis.
When a Section 10(a)(1)(A) Scientific Permit is Needed Collecting endangered species is a form of take and therefore, is prohibited under section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, unless the take is covered under a Section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific permit. Take is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. In addition to collecting, forms of take that could occur in the process of conducting Houston toad surveys include crushing individuals; compaction of 1
May 16, 2007 habitat and oviposition sites; disturbance of cover objects; harm or harassment that may occur with the introduction into the environment of noise, light, chemicals, and biological substances, and possibly other actions that would cause individuals to flee, seek shelter, or alter or cease normal foraging, anti-predation, or reproductive behavior. For information on how to apply for a 10(a)(1)(A) permit, contact the Region 2 Permits Office at (505)-248-6663 or access the application form directly at http://www.fws.gov/forms/3-200-55.pdf.
Requirements for Conducting Presence/Absence Surveys for the Houston Toad Sampling Diligence and Thoroughness To ensure adequate coverage of a project area, a system of grids or transects, with listening stations separated by 1/4 mile or less, should be established throughout all areas (where access is allowed) that support suitable Houston toad habitat.
Surveyors should be familiar with anuran calls and taxonomy, and should be able to independently recognize the Houston toad call. Surveyors should possess a tape/digital recorded call of the Houston toad for reference.
Surveyors should be careful to avoid disturbing toads when approaching a suspected breeding site (for example, surveyors should avoid bright lights and noise). Assuming no disturbance has occurred, surveyors should spend at least five minutes at each listening stop, under quiet conditions. If no toads are heard during that time, a visual search for toads should be made if access to the chorus site is available.
Each suspected Houston toad breeding site where Houston toads are not heard chorusing should be inspected for egg strands, tadpoles, and toadlets.
A tape or digital recording of the Houston toad call should be used to try to elicit Houston toad chorusing at each suspected Houston toad breeding site if Houston toads are not heard chorusing during the initial five minute listening period.
Number of Sampling Occasions Surveyors are required to conduct a minimum of six visits to each five minute listening post during one breeding season to infer absence of the Houston toad from a site.
However, available information indicates that 12 visits to a five minute listening post during one breeding season may be necessary to provide a reasonable probability of detecting Houston toads when the species is actually present at a location (Jackson et al 2006). If surveyors make less than 12 visits to each listening post during one breeding season, an explanation should be provided in the annual report as to how or why their number of visits was chosen.
A minimum of three years of surveys may be necessary to infer the absence of Houston toads from a site, depending on annual weather conditions and toad activity.
2
May 16, 2007 Suitable Sampling Conditions Ideally, the survey effort should be spread out over the peak of the breeding season (February-April).
Surveys shall be conducted when temperatures are found to be at or above 57 degrees Fahrenheit.
Surveys may also be conducted when moisture-laden Pacific fronts occur that bring rain but do not lower air temperatures below 57 degrees Fahrenheit.
Surveys may begin about 30 minutes after sundown and should end if, and when, a significant drop in temperature occurs.
In addition to temperatures above 57 degrees Fahrenheit, other weather conditions that may stimulate Houston toad chorusing may include:
x humidity greater than 70 percent, x cloud cover present or moon not full, and x rainfall or recent rainfall (occurring within the previous 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />).
To maximize the surveyors hearing ability, surveys should be conducted when wind speeds are less than 15 miles per hour.
Reporting Annual reports are required by all section 10(a)(1)(A) permittees. Survey reports must include the following information:
Personnel x Names of all persons involved in the surveys and their duties x The section 10(a)(1)(A) scientific report number under which work was conducted x Person(s) directly responsible for writing the report Location x Locations of suspected breeding sites surveyed and the property boundaries on either a U.S. Geological Survey quad map (7.5 minute or larger scale) or, if possible, in a GIS (Geographic Information System) layer with georeferenced survey location data (using global positioning system (GPS)), including references, such as road names and political boundaries x General description of the geology, soils, vegetation, and land use of each area surveyed 3
May 16, 2007 Weather Conditions x Documentation of weather data (including copies of monthly weather summaries obtainable from the State Climatologist or local weather stations for each survey conducted) x Recorded data on air temperature (to the nearest one degree Fahrenheit), humidity (to the nearest one percent), precipitation, wind speed, cloud cover, and moon phase at the suspected breeding sites for each survey night conducted Methods x Survey methodology descriptions using standards consistent with a scientific, peer-reviewed publication x Dates and times of each survey conducted x Number of visits made to each five minute listening post and an explanation as to how or why this number of visits was chosen, if sites were visited less than 12 times x Documentation that Houston toad call tapes were played at sites where Houston toads were not detected Survey Results x Both positive and negative survey results for each survey conducted on each survey route in each survey area on a map or in a GIS layer, as described above x Locations of potential or known breeding sites (water features) surveyed on a map or in a GIS layer, as described above x Approximate number of Houston toads detected at each survey site x Notable observations of habitat conditions at potential or known breeding sites x Notable observations on Houston toad behavior when surveyed Literature Cited Jackson, J.T., F.W. Weckerly, T.M. Swannack, M.R.J. Forstner. 2006. Inferring absence of Houston toads given imperfect detection probabilities. Journal of Wildlife Management 70: 1461-1463.
4
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR PROJECTS AFFECTING RIVERS, STREAMS AND TRIBUTARIES The project crosses or potentially affects river, stream or tributary aquatic habitat. Therefore the Service recommends implementing the following applicable Best Management Practices:
- 1. Construct stream crossings during a period of low streamflow (e.g., July -
September);
- 2. Cross streams, stream banks and riparian zones at right angles and at gentle slopes;
- 3. When feasible, directionally bore under stream channels;
- 4. Disturb riparian and floodplain vegetation only when necessary;
- 5. Construction equipment should cross the stream at one confined location over an existing bridge, equipment pads, clean temporary native rock fill, or over a temporary portable bridge;
- 6. Limit in-stream equipment use to that needed to construct crossings;
- 7. Place trench spoil at least 25 feet away landward from streambanks;
- 8. Use sediment filter devices to prevent movement of spoil off right-of-way when standing or flowing water is present;
- 9. Trench de-watering, as necessary, should be conducted to prevent discharge of silt laden water into the stream channel;
- 10. Maintain the current contours of the bank and channel bottom;
- 11. Do not store hazardous materials, chemicals, fuels, lubricating oils, and other such substances within 100 feet of streambanks;
- 12. Refuel construction equipment at least 100 feet from streambanks;
- 13. Revegetate all disturbed areas as soon as possible after construction to prevent unnecessary soil erosion. Use only native riparian plants to help prevent the spread of exotics;
- 14. Maintain sediment filters at the base of all slopes located adjacent to the streams until right-of-way vegetation becomes established;
- 15. Maintain a vegetative filtration strip adjacent to streams and wetlands. The width of a filter strip is based on the slope of the banks and the width of the stream.
Guidance to determine the appropriate filter strip (stream management zone, SMZ) width is provided below; and
- 16. Direct water runoff into vegetated areas.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR PROJECTS AFFECTINGRIVERS, STREAMS AND TRIBUTARIES. Document prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office, 9014 East 21st Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74129-1428. For the most recent information visit our website, http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/oklahoma/default.htm, write, or call (918) 581-7458. 1/24/2007
2 SMZ widths should consider watershed characteristics, risk of erosion, soil type, and stream width. SMZ widths are measured from the top of each bank and established on each side of the stream. Erosion risk is increased with sandy soil, steep slopes, large watersheds and increasing stream widths. Recommended primary and secondary SMZ widths are provided in the table below.
Stream Width (Feet) Slope (Percent) Primary SMZ (Feet) Secondary SMZ (Feet)
<20 <7 35 0
<20 7-20 35 50
<20 >20 Top of slope or 150 75 20-50 <7 50 0 20-50 7-20 50 50 20-50 >20 Top of slope or 150 75
>50 <7 Width of stream or 100 max. 0
>50 7-20 Width of stream or 100 max. 50
>50 >20 Top of slope or 150 75 Reference Arkansas Forestry Commission. 2001. Draft Arkansas Forestry Best Management Practices for Water Quality Protection.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR PROJECTS AFFECTINGRIVERS, STREAMS AND TRIBUTARIES. Document prepared by the U.S. Fish and 2 Wildlife Service, Oklahoma Ecological Services Field Office, 9014 East 21st Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74129-1428. For the most recent information visit our website, http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/oklahoma/default.htm, write, or call (918) 581-7458. 1/24/2007