ML15050A673
"Draft Supplement" is not in the list (Request, Draft Request, Supplement, Acceptance Review, Meeting, Withholding Request, Withholding Request Acceptance, RAI, Draft RAI, Draft Response to RAI, ...) of allowed values for the "Project stage" property.
| ML15050A673 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Fermi, Sequoyah  |
| Issue date: | 07/31/2014 |
| From: | DTE Electric Company |
| To: | NRC/OCM |
| SECY RAS | |
| References | |
| M-52-033-COL, Mandatory Hearing, RAS 27278 | |
| Download: ML15050A673 (23) | |
Text
Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Supplement 53 Regarding Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Draft Report for Comment Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation NUREG-1437 Supplement 53 DTE000021
Affected Environment 3-74 Crustacean 1
Chickamauga crayfish are threatened in the State of Tennessee but not Federally listed. They 2
have a very small range and are found in the South Chickamauga Creek basin in Hamilton 3
County and in Walker and Whitfield Counties in Georgia. They prefer moderately flowing 4
shallow streams; are usually found under rocks or in leaf litter debris; and are omnivorous 5
scavengers that eat aquatic vegetation, small fish, snails, and aquatic insects (Georgia Museum 6
of Natural History 2008). South Chickamauga Creek enters the Tennessee River downstream 7
of Chickamauga Dam. For this reason, Chickamauga crayfish would not be affected by 8
operation of SQN and are not discussed further in this SEIS.
9 Fish 10 The State deems the highfin carpsucker, the smallest carpsucker in Tennessee, as in need of 11 management for Hamilton County. They live in areas of gravel substrate in relatively clear 12 medium-to-large rivers. Highfin carpsuckers are more susceptible to impoundment and siltation 13 than other carpsuckers and, in Tennessee, are known to persist in the Nolichucky, French 14 Broad, Clinch, Hiwassee, Sequatchie, and Duck River systems (Etnier and Starnes 1993). In 15 2004, TVA found a single individual approximately 5 mi (8 km) upstream from the intake of the 16 SQN plant during an electrofishing survey (TVA 2013d-f).
17 Amphibians 18 Tennessee cave salamanders are listed as threatened. They are found only in the southern 19 Appalachian Mountains of Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama. They inhabit limestone caves 20 with subterranean waters (SREL 2013). No caves are present on the SQN site. For this 21 reason, the Tennessee cave salamander would not be affected by operation of SQN and is not 22 discussed further in this SEIS.
23 Reintroductions 24 The State of Tennessee and various partner groups are working to reintroduce the lake 25 sturgeon into the upper Tennessee River watershed (TWRA 2013f). Since 2000, the TWRA 26 has stocked over 125,000 lake sturgeon (Tennessee Aquarium 2013) into rivers including the 27 French Broad, Holston, and Tennessee rivers downstream of Douglas and Cherokee 28 Reservoirs (TWRA 2013f). In addition, the Tennessee Aquarium introduced approximately 29 100 lake sturgeon into Nickajack Reservoir between 2010 and 2011 (TWRA 2013a). The 30 sampling studies conducted by TVA between 1999 and 2011 identified a single lake sturgeon, 31 collected in 2003 by gillnet, from the sampling site located upstream of the SQN intake at 32 Tennessee RM 490.5 (TVA 2012c).
33 Lake sturgeon are considered endangered by the State of Tennessee, but are not Federally 34 listed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Lake sturgeon are large fish that can reach 4 m (13 ft) 35 and 310 lb (141 kg). They are slow to mature; first spawning occurs between 14 and 25 years 36 for females and 12 and 20 years for males. Lake sturgeon are considered to be the longest 37 lived North American freshwater fish, with a maximum age estimate of 154 years, although 38 populations in Tennessee would be expected to have a smaller size and shorter life span than 39 those farther north (Etnier and Starnes 1993).
40 3.8 Special Status Species and Habitats 41 This section addresses species and habitats that are Federally protected under the ESA and the 42 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended 43 (16 U.S.C. §1801-1884, herein referred to as Magnuson-Stevens Act). The ESA, along with 44 the Magnuson-Stevens Act, put requirements on Federal agencies such as the NRC. The 45
Affected Environment 3-75 terrestrial and aquatic resource sections of this SEIS (Sections 3.6 and 3.7, respectively) 1 discuss other species and habitats protected by other Federal acts and the State of Tennessee 2
that do not put requirements on the NRC.
3 3.8.1 Species and Habitats Protected Under the Endangered Species Act 4
The FWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) jointly administer the ESA. The 5
FWS manages the protection of, and recovery effort for, listed terrestrial and freshwater 6
species, and NMFS manages the protection of and recovery effort for listed marine and 7
anadromous species. This section describes the action area and considers those species that 8
could occur in the action area under both FWSs and NMFSs jurisdictions. Section 4.8 9
assesses potential impacts to Federally listed species and habitats that could result from the 10 proposed action and alternatives, and Appendix C describes the NRCs consultation with FWS 11 pursuant to section 7 of the ESA.
12 3.8.1.1 Action Area 13 The implementing regulations for section 7(a)(2) of the ESA define action area as all areas 14 affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved 15 in the action (50 CFR 402.02). The action area effectively bounds the analysis of 16 ESA-protected species and habitats because only species that occur within the action area may 17 be affected by the Federal action.
18 For the purposes of the ESA analysis in this SEIS, the NRC staff considers the action area to be 19 the SQN site (described in Sections 3.1 and 3.6) and the Chickamauga Reservoir (described in 20 Section 3.7) from the point of river water intake at the site (at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 21 485.1) and extending 4.1 mi (6.6 km) downstream to TRM 481.0. This area of the reservoir 22 corresponds to the area over which the thermal plume extends during the summer 23 measurement period (as discussed in Section 4.7). The NRC staff expects all direct and 24 indirect effects of the proposed action to be contained within these areas.
25 The NRC staff recognizes that while the action area is stationary, Federally listed species can 26 move in and out of the action area. For instance, a migratory fish species could occur in the 27 action area seasonally as it travels up and down the river past SQN. Similarly, a flowering plant 28 known to occur near, but outside, of the action area could appear within the action area over 29 time if its seeds are carried into the action area by wind, water, or animals. Thus, in its analysis, 30 the NRC staff considers not only those species known to occur directly within the action area, 31 but those species that occur near the action area. The staff then considers whether the life 32 history of each species makes the species likely to move into the action area where it could be 33 affected by the proposed SQN license renewal.
34 Within the action area, Federally listed terrestrial species could experience impacts such as 35 habitat disturbance associated with refurbishment or other ground-disturbing activities, cooling 36 tower drift, collisions with cooling towers and transmission lines, exposure to radionuclides, and 37 other direct and indirect impacts associated with station, cooling system, and in-scope 38 transmission line operation and maintenance (NRC 2013d). The proposed action has the 39 potential to affect Federally listed aquatic species in several ways: impingement or entrainment 40 of individuals into the cooling system; alteration of the riverine environment through water level 41 reductions, changes in dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, eutrophication, and thermal 42 discharges from cooling system operation; habitat loss or alteration from dredging; and 43 exposure to radionuclides (NRC 2013d).
44
Affected Environment 3-76 3.8.1.2 Species and Habitats Under the FWSs Jurisdiction 1
Table 3-19 identifies the species under FWSs jurisdiction that may occur within Hamilton 2
County. Hamilton County includes approximately 369,000 ac (149,000 ha) of varying land uses 3
and habitat types. Thus, a Federally listed species that occurs within Hamilton County does not 4
necessarily occur within the action area. The NRC staff uses this geographical range as a 5
starting point for its analysis because Federally listed species distribution and critical habitat 6
information is readily available at the county level. Additionally, the action area is a small area 7
of land near the center of and wholly contained within the geographical boundaries of the 8
county. Following the table, descriptions of each species include a determination of whether 9
each species occurs in the action area based on the species habitat requirements, life history, 10 and available occurrence information.
11 The NRC compiled the list of species in Table 3-19 from the FWSs Endangered Species 12 Program online database (FWS 2014); correspondence between the NRC and the FWS 13 (FWS 2013b, 2013c; NRC 2013g); information from TVAs ER (TVA 2013n) and Natural 14 Heritage Database (TVA 2013j); and available scientific studies, surveys, and literature.
15 The NRC staff did not identify any candidate species or proposed or designated critical habitats 16 within the action area.
17
Affected Environment 3-77 Table 3-19. Federally Listed Species in Hamilton County, TN 1
Species(a)
Common Name Federal Status Habitat Mammals Myotis grisescens gray bat Endangered limestone karst areas within the southeastern United States Myotis septentrionalis northern long-eared bat Protected Hardwood forests; caves and mines with cool, moist air Myotis sodalis Indiana bat Endangered Hardwood forests and hardwood-pine forests; old-growth forest; agricultural lands, and old fields Fish Percuba tanasi snail darter Threatened Sand and gravel shoals of moderately flowing, vegetated, large creeks Freshwater Mussels Dromus dromas dromedary pearlymussel Endangered Medium to large rivers with riffles and shoals with relatively firm rubble, gravel, and stable substrates Lampsilis abrupta pink mucket Endangered Generally a large river species, preferring sand-gravel or rocky substrates with moderate to strong currents Plethobasus cooperianus orangefoot pimpleback Endangered Large rivers in sand-gravel-cobble substrates in riffles and shoals in deep flowing water Pleurobema plenum rough pigtoe Endangered Medium to large rivers in sand, gravel, and cobble substrates of shoals Plants Isotria medeoloides small whorled pogonia Threatened Hardwood or conifer-hardwood forest floors near stream beds Scutellaria montana large-flowered skullcap Threatened Mid-to late-successional forests dominated by oak and pine trees Spiraea virginiana Virginia spiraea Threatened Floodplains, riverbanks, and other riparian habitat in the southern Appalachian Mountains (a) The NRC preliminarily considered two additional speciesthe Cumberland monkeyface (Quadrula intermedia; Federally endangered) and the white fringeless orchid (Platanthera integrilabia; candidate for Federal listing)in its early correspondence with FWS (NRC 2013g). However, the NRC staff determined that these species do not occur within Hamilton County, and thus, would not occur within the action area based on historical and known occurrence information and habitat requirements.
Sources: FWS 2013b, 2013c, 2014; NRC 2013g; TVA 2013j, 2013n
Affected Environment 3-78 Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens) 1 The FWS listed the gray bat as endangered in 1976 (40 FR 17590). No critical habitat has been 2
designated for this species. White nose syndrome, human disturbance, water impoundments, 3
and other activities resulting in loss of habitat are factors that have contributed to this species 4
decline. Unless otherwise indicated, information on this species below is derived from the 5
FWSs Gray Bat Recovery Plan (Brady et al. 1982).
6 The gray bat is the largest Myotis species with a wingspan of 40 to 46 mm (1.7 to 1.8 in.), and it 7
is distinguishable from other bat species by its unicolor dorsal fur, which is dark gray after 8
molting in July and August and chesnut brown to russet between moltings. The species mainly 9
inhabits five states in the southeastern United States (Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, 10 and Tennessee) and is also found in small numbers as far north as Illinois and as far south as 11 northwestern Florida. Distribution of the species has always been patchy, but fragmentation 12 and isolation of populations has increased as the species has become more in danger of 13 extinction.
14 Gray bats migrate seasonally between hibernating and maternity caves. Upon arrival at 15 hibernating caves in September through early October, adults mate and enter hibernaculum.
16 Adults emerge beginning in late March, at which time they migrate to summer habitat. Mortality 17 is typically high during this time because fat reserves and food supplies are low. Summer 18 colonies occupy traditional home ranges that include a maternal cave and several roost caves 19 typically located along a river or reservoir. Hibernating females store sperm until spring, and 20 give birth to one pup in late May or early June. Females raise young in maternity colonies.
21 Gray bats possess very specific microclimate requirements and are limited to limestone karst 22 areas, typically within 1 km (0.6 mi) of rivers or reservoirs. Foraging territories may include 23 lands farther from water. Brady et al. (1982) indicates that because of its habitat requirements, 24 the species is restricted to fewer than five percent of available caves, and in 1982, 95 percent of 25 the known population hibernated in only nine caves each winter. In 1982, the gray bat 26 population was estimated to include 1,575,000 individuals, of which 300,000 individuals were 27 located in Tennessee. Mitchell and Martin (2002) estimated the population to have risen to 28 2.3 million bats by 2001.
29 In a final environmental statement for operation of Watts Bar 2 in Rhea County (located 31 mi 30
[50 km] north of SQN), the NRC (2013b) found that gray bats are known to roost in two caves 31 near the Watts Bar 2 site. The gray bat has also been documented within the Chickamauga 32 and Chattanooga National Military Park according to a FWS (2012) press release announcing 33 the discovery of white-nose syndrome in a park cave. The Military Park includes lands in 34 Hamilton County, Tennessee, and Catoosa, Dade, and Walker Counties, Georgia. Three caves 35 exist near the action area (within 6 mi (10 km) of the SQN site): Posey Cave, Havens Cave, 36 and Harrison Bluff Cave (TVA 2013a). However, none of these caves are associated with 37 occurrences of Federally listed species (TVA 2013a, 2013b). Additionally, during the NRC 38 staffs environmental site audit, TVA provided NRC staff with records for review from its Natural 39 Heritage Database, which included detailed occurrence information on Federally listed species, 40 State-listed species, and other special status species throughout the TVA power service area.
41 The NRC reviewed database records of species and habitat occurrences within a 6-mi (10-km) 42 radius of the SQN site and found that TVA (2013b) has not identified the gray bat within this 43 area.
44 Given the available information, the NRC staff concludes that the gray bat is unlikely to occur 45 within the action area.
46
Affected Environment 3-79 Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) 1 The FWS published a proposed rule to list the northern long-eared bat as endangered 2
throughout its range on December 2, 2013 (78 FR 72058). The FWS did not propose to 3
designate critical habitat for the species because it found that such habitat is not determinable 4
at this time (78 FR 61046). White nose syndrome, wind energy development, and loss of 5
habitat specifically linked to surface coal mining in prime summer habitat are factors that have 6
contributed to this species decline. Unless otherwise indicated, information on this species is 7
derived from the FWSs Federal Register notice for the proposed rule to list the species 8
(78 FR 61046).
9 The northern long-eared bat is a medium-sized bat that is distinguished from other Myotis 10 species by its long ears, which average 0.7 in. (17 mm) in length. This bat inhabits 39 states in 11 the eastern and north central United States and all Canadian provinces west to the southern 12 Yukon Territory and eastern British Columbia. Populations tend to be patchily distributed and 13 are typically composed of small numbers. More than 780 winter hibernacula have been 14 recorded in the United States (11 in Tennessee), most of which contain only a few (1 to 3) 15 individuals. The FWS recognizes four United States populations, and northern long-eared bats 16 inhabiting Tennessee are considered part of the Southern population. The northern long-eared 17 bat is less common in the southern portion of its range than in the northern portion of the range.
18 Thompson (2006) considers the species common within Tennessee, and in 2010, individuals 19 were caught in summer mist-net surveys as well as observed in 11 caves during Tennessee 20 hibernacula censuses. The proximity of these occurrences to the SQN site is unknown because 21 survey locations are not provided in the proposed rule or otherwise published.
22 In summer, northern long-eared bats roost alone or in small colonies under the bark of live or 23 dead trees; in caves or mines; or in man-made structures, such as barns, sheds, and other 24 buildings. The species opportunistically roosts in a variety of trees, including several species of 25 oaks, maples, beech, and pine. Northern long-eared bats forage both in-flight and on the 26 ground and eat a variety of moths, flies, leafhoppers, caddisflies, and beetles. The species 27 breeds from late July to early October, after which time it will migrate to winter hibernacula.
28 Northern long-eared bats are short-distance migrators and will travel 35 to 55 mi (56 to 89 km) 29 from summer roosts to winter hibernacula. Hibernating females store sperm until spring, and 30 give birth to one pup approximately 60 days after fertilization. Females raise young in maternity 31 colonies of up to 30 individuals.
32 The action area does not contain suitable habitat for hibernation. As indicated in the description 33 of the gray bat, three caves exist near the action area, but none of the caves are associated 34 with occurrences of Federally listed species (TVA 2013a, 2013b). For roosting and foraging, 35 over half of the action area is developed or composed of unsuitable habitat types. The 36 remainder of the action area includes approximately 278 ac (113 ha) of suitable habitat types:
37 150 ac (60 ha) of forest habitat of various types; 120 ac (50 ha) of grasslands or agricultural 38 lands; and 8 ac (3 ha) of wooded wetlands (TVA 2013a). However, none of the available FWS 39 records indicate occurrences of hibernacula, maternity colonies, or individual northern long-40 eared bats in the action area or in the larger geographical area of Hamilton County.
41 Additionally, during the NRC staffs environmental site audit, TVA provided NRC staff with 42 records for review from its Natural Heritage Database, which included detailed occurrence 43 information on Federally listed species, State-listed and other special status species throughout 44 the TVA power service area. The NRC reviewed database records of species and habitat 45 occurrences within a 6-mi (10-km) radius of the SQN site and found that TVA (2013b) has not 46 identified northern long-eared bat hibernacula, maternity colonies, or individuals within this area.
47
Affected Environment 3-80 Given the available information, the NRC staff concludes that the northern long-eared bat is 1
unlikely to occur within the action area.
2 Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) 3 The FWS listed the Indiana bat as endangered in 1967 (32 FR 4001). The FWS designated 4
critical habitat for the Indiana bat in 1976 (41 FR 41914) to include 11 caves and 2 mines in 5
six states including a cave in Blount County, Tennessee. No critical habitat for this species 6
occurs in Hamilton County.
7 The Indiana bat is an insectivorous, migratory bat that inhabits the central portion of the eastern 8
United States and hibernates colonially in caves and mines. The decline of Indiana bats is 9
attributed to urban expansion, habitat loss and degradation, human-caused disturbance of 10 caves or mines, insecticide poisoning, and white nose syndrome (FWS 2007, 2011).
11 During summer months, reproductive female bats tend to roost in colonies under slabs of 12 peeling tree bark or cracks within trees in forest fragments, often near agricultural areas 13 (FWS 2007). Colonies may also inhabit closed-canopy, bottomland deciduous forest; riparian 14 habitats; wooded wetlands and floodplains; and upland communities (FWS 2007). Maternity 15 colonies typically consist of 60 to 80 adult females (Whitaker and Brack 2002). Colonies occupy 16 multiple trees for roosting and rearing young (Watrous et al. 2006) and, once established, 17 usually return to the same areas each year (FWS 2007). Nonreproductive females and males 18 do not roost in colonies during the summer; they may remain near the hibernacula or migrate to 19 summer habitat (FWS 2007). High-quality summer habitat includes mature forest stands 20 containing open subcanopies, multiple moderate-to high-quality snags, and trees with 21 exfoliating bark (Farmer et al. 2002). In summer, bats forage for insects along forest edges, 22 riparian areas, and in semiopen forested habitats. In the winter, Indiana bats rely on caves for 23 hibernation. The species prefers hibernacula in areas with karst (limestone, dolomite, and 24 gypsum) and may also use other cave-like locations, such as mines.
25 The FWSs Indiana Bat Recovery Plan (FWS 2007) indicates that Indiana bats are distributed 26 across 21 Tennessee counties. Thirty-four winter hibernacula (21 extant, 7 of uncertain status, 27 and 6 historic) are located throughout these counties. Three extant maternity colonies occur in 28 Blount and Monroe Counties. Additionally, adult males and/or nonreproductive females have 29 been captured during summer surveys within 9 of the 21 counties. In 2007, the FWS estimated 30 that Tennessees total population of Indiana bats was 8,906 individuals (FWS 2009). According 31 to more recent estimates based on winter surveys conducted in January and February of 2013, 32 the FWS (2013d) estimate that the Tennessee population of Indiana bats is currently 33 15,537 individuals.
34 The action area does not contain suitable habitat for hibernation. As indicated in the description 35 of the gray bat, three caves exist near the action area, but none of the caves are associated 36 with occurrences of Federally listed species (TVA 2013j, 2013n). For roosting and foraging, 37 over half of the action area is developed or composed of unsuitable habitat types. The 38 remainder of the action area includes approximately 278 ac (113 ha) of suitable habitat types:
39 150 ac (60 ha) of forest habitat of various types; 120 ac (50 ha) of grasslands or agricultural 40 lands; and 8 ac (3 ha) of wooded wetlands (TVA 2013n). However, none of the available FWS 41 records indicate occurrences of hibernacula, maternity colonies, or individual Indiana bats in the 42 action area or in the larger geographical area of Hamilton County. Additionally, during the NRC 43 staffs environmental site audit, TVA provided NRC staff with records for review from its Natural 44 Heritage Database, which included detailed occurrence information on Federally listed species 45 throughout the TVA power service area. The NRC reviewed database records of species and 46 habitat occurrences within a 6-mi (10-km) radius of the SQN site and found that TVA (2013j) 47 has not identified Indiana bat hibernacula, maternity colonies, or individuals within this area.
48
Affected Environment 3-81 Given the available information, the NRC staff concludes that the Indiana bat is unlikely to occur 1
within the action area.
2 Snail Darter (Percina tanasi) 3 The FWS listed the snail darter as endangered in 1975 (40 FR 47505) and reclassified the 4
species as threatened in 1984 after additional populations were identified in several 5
Tennessee River tributaries and reservoirs (FWS 2013e). The FWS designated critical habitat 6
for the species in the Little Tennessee River at the time of listing. However, creation of 7
Tellico Dam destroyed the darters entire critical habitat area, and the FWS rescinded the critical 8
habitat designation upon reclassifying the species as threatened in 1984 (FWS undated d).
9 Snail darters inhabit larger creeks where they frequent sand and gravel shoal areas in low 10 turbidity water. They are also found in deeper portions of rivers and reservoirs where current is 11 present (Etnier and Starnes 1993). The FWS believes the snail darter originally inhabited the 12 main stem of the Tennessee River and possibly ranged from the Holston, French Broad, 13 Lower Clinch, and Hiwassee rivers downstream within the Tennessee drainage to northern 14 Alabama (FWS undated d). However, impoundments have fragmented much of the species 15 range (Etnier and Starnes 1993). The FWS (2013e) has records of the snail darter occurring in 16 Chickamauga Reservoir in Hamilton, Meigs, and Rhea Counties in 1976 (before the 17 construction of SQN). TVA has not collected the species during its stream samplings of 18 tributaries to the Tennessee River within Chickamauga Reservoir in the available data years 19 (1995-2009) (Simmons 2010b). The NRC staffs review of records from the TVA (2013j) 20 Natural Heritage Database also did not identify information that would suggest the species 21 occurs in vicinity of the plant. Furthermore, the snail darters habitat requirements make it 22 unlikely to occur in the portion of Chickamauga Reservoir within the action area.
23 Given the available information, the NRC staff concludes that the snail darter is unlikely to occur 24 within the action area.
25 Dromedary Pearlymussel (Dromus dromas) 26 The FWS listed the dromedary pearlymussel as endangered in 1976 (41 FR 24062). The FWS 27 has not designated critical habitat for this species.
28 The dromedary pearlymussel is a medium-sized freshwater mussel with a yellowish green shell 29 that has two sets of broken green rays. Juveniles and adults inhabit riffles on sand and gravel 30 substrates with stable rubble within small to medium streams that have low turbidity and high to 31 moderate gradients. Individuals have also been observed in slower waters and to depths of 32 5.5 m (18 ft). The species has as many as 11 glochidial (larval) hosts. The fantail darter 33 (Etheostoma flabellare) is a known host, and laboratory studies indicate that the following 34 species may also be hosts: banded darter (E. zonale), tangerine darter (Percina aurantiaca),
35 logperch (P. caprodes), gilt darter (P. evides), black sculpin (Cottus baileyi), greenside darter 36 (E. blennioides), snubnose darter (E. simoterum), blotchside logperch (P. burtoni), channel 37 darter (P. copelandi), and Roanoke darter (P. roanoka) (FWS undated a).
38 Dromedary pearlymussels, which were historically widespread in the Cumberland and 39 Tennessee River systems, have been eliminated from the majority of the species historic 40 riverine habitat because of impoundments. Only three reproducing populations are thought to 41 exist: one in the upper Clinch River, Tennessee; one in the Powell River, Tennessee; and one 42 in Virginia above Norris Reservoir (NatureServe 2013a).
43 TVAs (2013j) Natural Heritage Database records indicate that one dromedary pearlymussel 44 individual was identified near the mouth of Soddy Creek (approximately 2.4 mi (4 km) upstream 45 of the action area) in a 1918 publication by A.E. Ortmann. The most recent observation of a 46
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 4-44 required to comply with the States NPDES permitting. If the site selected is a greenfield site, a 1
new intake and discharge system would be required. If it is located at an existing nuclear site, 2
such as the Bellefonte site in Alabama, the available infrastructure could be used in its current 3
configuration or be modified or expanded. Any dredging or in-water work at sites other than on 4
the Tennessee River or its tributaries, which are controlled by TVA, could require permits from 5
USACE pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). Other 6
USACE permits could be required, depending on the location of the site. Dredging activities 7
would also require BMPs for in-water work to minimize sedimentation and erosion. Due to the 8
short-term nature of the dredging activities, the effect on the aquatic habitats would likely be 9
relatively localized and temporary (recovery time for aquatic communities typically takes several 10 years).
11 The new nuclear units would use a closed-cycle cooling system so that water consumption 12 would be less than for the SQN units, which operate in open-cycle and helper modes. As a 13 result, the withdrawal of water and the thermal input from the discharge would be less than for 14 the SQN units. This in turn would reduce entrainment, impingement, and thermal impacts to 15 aquatic organisms. Without knowing the location of the new nuclear units and the aquatic 16 species and their ecosystem interactions, NRC staff cannot assume that the overall impacts of 17 operation of a new nuclear unit would be less than those for the license renewal term at the 18 SQN site. Impacts on aquatic organisms from construction and operation of a new nuclear 19 facility would be SMALL to MODERATE.
20 4.7.6 Combination Alternative - Aquatic Resources 21 The staff assumes that construction activities for the combination alternative would occur at 22 another site, other than the SQN site, and could affect drainage areas or other onsite aquatic 23 features. The NRC staff assumes TVA will implement BMPs to minimize erosion and 24 sedimentation in nearby streams, ponds, or rivers. The States NPDES permitting would require 25 stormwater control measures. During operations, the land-based wind and solar alternative 26 would not require withdrawal of water or consumptive water use. Thus, the impacts on aquatic 27 ecology from the land-based wind and solar combination alternative would be SMALL.
28 4.8 Special Status Species and Habitats 29 This section describes the potential impacts of the proposed action (license renewal) and 30 alternatives to the proposed action on special status species and habitats.
31 4.8.1 Proposed Action 32 The special status species and habitats issue applicable to SQN during the license renewal 33 term is listed in Table 4-13. Section 3.8 of this SEIS describes the special status species and 34 habitats that have the potential to be affected by the proposed action. The discussion of 35 species and habitats protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA),
36 includes a description of the action area as defined by the ESA section 7 regulations at 37 50 CFR Part 402.02. The action area encompasses all areas that would be directly or indirectly 38 affected by the proposed SQN license renewal.
39 Appendix C.1 contains information on the NRC staffs section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish 40 and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the proposed action. The NRC did not consult with the National 41 Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as part of the SQN license renewal review because (as 42 described in Section 3.8 and 4.8.1.1) no species or habitats under NMFSs jurisdiction occur 43 within the action area.
44
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 4-45 Table 4-13. Special Status Species and Habitats 1
Issue GEIS Section Category Threatened, endangered, and protected species, critical habitat, and essential fish habitat 4.6.1.3 2
Source: Table B-1 in Appendix B, Subpart A, to 10 CFR Part 51 4.8.1.1 Species and Habitats Protected under the Endangered Species Act 2
Species and Habitats under FWS Jurisdiction 3
Section 3.8 considers whether the 11 Federally listed and proposed species identified in 4
Table 4-14 occur in the action area based on each species habitat requirements, life history, 5
scientific surveys and studies, and other available information. In that section, the NRC staff 6
concludes that none of these species are likely to occur in the action area. The NRC staff also 7
concludes that no candidate species (CS) or proposed or designated critical habitat occur in the 8
action area. Thus, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would have no effect on 9
Federally listed species or habitats under FWSs jurisdiction.
10 Table 4-14. Effect Determinations for Federally Listed Species 11 Species Common Name Federal Status(a)
Effect Determination Mammals Myotis grisescens gray bat E
no effect Myotis septentrionalis northern long-eared bat P
no effect Myotis sodalis Indiana bat E
no effect Fish Percuba tanasi snail darter T
no effect Freshwater Mussels Dromus dromas dromedary pearlymussel E
no effect Lampsilis abrupta pink mucket E
no effect Plethobasus cooperianus orangefoot pimpleback E
no effect Pleurobema plenum rough pigtoe E
no effect Plants Isotria medeoloides small whorled pogonia T
no effect Scutellaria montana large-flowered skullcap T
no effect Spiraea virginiana Virginia spiraea T
no effect (a) E = endangered; T = threatened; P = proposed
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 4-46 If in the future a Federally listed species is observed on the SQN site, the NRC has measures in 1
place to ensure that NRC staff would be appropriately notified. SQNs operating licenses, 2
Appendix B, Environmental Protection Plan, Section 4.1.1 (NRC 1980, 1981) require TVA to 3
report to the NRC within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> any occurrence of a species protected by the ESA on the 4
SQN site. Additionally, the NRCs regulations containing notification requirements require that 5
operating nuclear power reactors report to the NRC within 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> any event or situation, 6
related toprotection of the environment, for which a news release is planned or notification to 7
other government agencies has been or will be made (10 CFR Part 50.72(b)(2)(xi)). Such 8
notifications include reports regarding Federally listed species, as described in Section 3.2.12 of 9
NUREG-1022 (NRC 2013b). Further, as a Federal agency, TVA has the responsibility to 10 comply with section 7 of the ESA if listed species or effects of the action are identified that were 11 not previously considered.
12 Species and Habitats under NMFSs Jurisdiction 13 As discussed in Section 3.8, no species or habitats under NMFSs jurisdiction occur within the 14 action area. Thus, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would have no effect on 15 Federally listed species or habitats under NMFSs jurisdiction.
16 Cumulative Effects 17 The ESA regulations at 50 CFR Part 402.12(f)(4) direct Federal agencies to consider cumulative 18 effects as part of the proposed action effects analysis. Under the ESA, cumulative effects are 19 defined as those effects of future State or private activities, not involving Federal activities, that 20 are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to 21 consultation (50 CFR Part 402.02). Unlike the NEPA definition of cumulative impacts (see 22 Section 4.16), cumulative effects under the ESA do not include past actions or other Federal 23 actions requiring separate ESA section 7 consultation. When formulating biological opinions 24 under formal section 7 consultation, the FWS and NMFS (1998) consider cumulative effects 25 when determining the likelihood of jeopardy or adverse modification. Therefore, consideration 26 of cumulative effects under the ESA is necessary only if listed species will be adversely affected 27 by the proposed action (FWS 2014).
28 In the case of SQN, because the NRC staff concluded earlier in this section that the proposed 29 license renewal would have no effect on listed, proposed, or CS or on designated or proposed 30 critical habitat, consideration of cumulative effects is not necessary.
31 4.8.1.2 Species and Habitats Protected under the Magnuson-Stevens Act 32 As discussed in Section 3.8, NMFS has not designated essential fish habitat (EFH) pursuant to 33 the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended 34 (Magnuson-Stevens Act) in the Chickamauga Reservoir. Thus, the NRC staff concludes that 35 the proposed action would have no effect on EFH.
36 4.8.2 No-Action Alternative - Special Status Species and Habitats 37 Under the no-action alternative, SQN would shut down. Federally listed species and designated 38 critical habitat can be affected not only by operation of nuclear power plants but also by 39 activities during shutdown. The ESA action area for the no-action alternative would most likely 40 be the same or similar to the action area described in Section 3.8. Because the plant would 41 require substantially less cooling water, potential impacts to aquatic species and habitats would 42 be reduced, although the plant would still require some cooling water for some time. Changes 43 in land use and other shutdown activities might affect terrestrial species differently than under 44 continued operation.
45
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 4-47 Because no Federally listed species or habitats occur in the action area, the no-action 1
alternative would likely have no effect on any such species or habitats. However, NRC would 2
assess the need for ESA consultation upon plant shutdown. The ESA forbids the taking of a 3
listed species, where to take means harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 4
capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. In the case of a take, ESA 5
section 7 requires that NRC initiate consultation with the FWS or NMFS. The implementing 6
regulations at 50 CFR Part 402.16 also direct Federal agencies to reinitiate consultation in 7
circumstances where (a) the incidental take limit in a biological opinion is exceeded, (b) new 8
information reveals effects to Federally listed species or designated critical habitats that were 9
not previously considered, (c) the action is modified in a manner that causes effects not 10 previously considered, or (d) new species are listed or new critical habitat is designated that 11 may be affected by the action. An ESA Section 7 consultation could identify impacts on 12 Federally listed species or critical habitat, require monitoring and mitigation to minimize such 13 impacts, and provide a level of exempted takes. Regulations and guidance regarding the ESA 14 Section 7 consultation process are provided in 50 CFR Part 402 and in the Endangered Species 15 Consultation Handbook (FWS and NMFS 1998). Upon shutdown, if the NRC determined that 16 the no-action alternative would result in take of listed species or that one or more of the 17 reinitiation criteria at 50 CFR Part 402.16 would be met, the NRC would reinitiate consultation, 18 as appropriate, with FWS at that time. TVA, as a Federal agency, would also have 19 responsibilities under section 7 of the ESA upon SQN shutdown.
20 The effects on ESA-listed aquatic species would likely be smaller than the effects under 21 continued operation but would depend on the listed species and habitats present when the 22 alternative is implemented. The types and magnitudes of adverse impacts to terrestrial 23 ESA-listed species would depend on the shutdown activities and the listed species and habitats 24 present when the alternative is implemented, and thus, the NRC cannot forecast a particular 25 level of impact for this alternative.
26 The no-action alternative would not affect EFH because NMFS has not designated EFH in the 27 Chickamauga Reservoir.
28 4.8.3 NGCC Alternative - Special Status Species and Habitats 29 This alternative entails shutdown and decommissioning of SQN and construction of a new 30 NGCC alternative at an existing power plant site other than the SQN site or at a brownfield site 31 with available infrastructure in the TVA region. Section 4.8.2 discusses ESA considerations for 32 the shutdown of SQN.
33 Unlike the proposed action, no-action alternative, and new nuclear alternative, the NRC does 34 not license NGCC facilities, and the NRC would not be responsible for initiating section 7 35 consultation if listed species or habitats might be adversely affected under this alternative. The 36 facilities themselves would be responsible for protecting listed species because the ESA forbids 37 the taking of a listed species. If TVA were to implement the NGCC alternative, as a Federal 38 agency, TVA would be required to consult with FWS or NMFS under section 7. Similarly, TVA, 39 and not NRC, would be responsible for engaging in EFH consultation with NMFS under the 40 Magnuson-Stevens Act if EFH could be affected by construction or operation of the NGCC 41 alternative.
42 Because the NGCC alternative would be built on an existing power plant site other than the 43 SQN site, the special status species and habitats affected by the action would be different than 44 those considered under the proposed action. The types and magnitudes of adverse impacts to 45 ESA-listed species and EFH would depend on the proposed site, plant design, operation, and 46
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 4-48 listed species and habitats present when the alternative is implemented. Therefore, the NRC 1
cannot forecast a particular level of impact for this alternative.
2 4.8.4 SCPC Alternative - Special Status Species and Habitats 3
This alternative entails shutdown and decommissioning of SQN and construction of a new 4
SCPC alternative at an existing power plant site other than the SQN site or at a brownfield site 5
with available infrastructure in the TVA region. Section 4.8.2 discusses ESA considerations for 6
the shutdown of SQN.
7 Unlike the proposed action, no-action alternative, and new nuclear alternative, the NRC does 8
not license SCPC facilities, and the NRC would not be responsible for initiating section 7 9
consultation if listed species or habitats might be adversely affected under this alternative. The 10 facilities themselves would be responsible for protecting listed species because the ESA forbids 11 the taking of a listed species. If TVA were to implement the NGCC alternative, as a Federal 12 agency, TVA would be required to consult with FWS or NMFS under section 7. Similarly, TVA, 13 and not NRC, would be responsible for engaging in EFH consultation with NMFS under the 14 Magnuson-Stevens Act if EFH could be affected by construction or operation of the NGCC 15 alternative.
16 Because the SCPC alternative would be built on an existing power plant site other than the SQN 17 site, the special status species and habitats affected by the action would be different than those 18 considered under the proposed action. The types and magnitudes of adverse impacts to ESA-19 listed species and EFH would depend on the proposed site, plant design, operation, and listed 20 species and habitats present when the alternative is implemented. Therefore, the NRC cannot 21 forecast a particular level of impact for this alternative.
22 4.8.5 New Nuclear Alternative - Special Status Species and Habitats 23 This alternative entails shutdown and decommissioning of SQN and construction of a new 24 nuclear alternative at an existing power plant site other than the SQN site in the TVA region.
25 Section 4.8.2 discusses ESA considerations for the shutdown of SQN.
26 The NRC would remain the licensing agency under this alternative, and thus, the ESA would 27 require NRC to initiate consultation with the FWS and NMFS, as applicable, prior to construction 28 to ensure that the construction and operation of the new nuclear plant would not adversely 29 affect any Federally listed species or adversely modify or destroy designated critical habitat. If 30 the new nuclear plant is sited in an area that could affect water bodies with designated EFH, the 31 Magnuson-Stevens Act would require the NRC to consult with NMFS to evaluate potential 32 impacts to that habitat. TVA, as a Federal agency, would have consultation responsibilities 33 under the ESA and Magnuson-Stevens Act.
34 Because the new nuclear alternative would be built on an existing power plant site other than 35 the SQN site, the special status species and habitats affected by the action would be different 36 than those considered under the proposed action. The types and magnitudes of adverse 37 impacts to ESA-listed species and EFH would depend on the proposed site, plant design, 38 operation, and listed species and habitats present when the alternative is implemented.
39 Therefore, the NRC cannot forecast a particular level of impact for this alternative.
40 4.8.6 Combination Alternative - Special Status Species and Habitats 41 This alternative entails shutdown and decommissioning of SQN and construction and operation 42 of wind turbines, possibly outside of the TVA region through purchased power agreements, and 43
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 4-49 solar photovoltaic systems throughout the TVA region. Section 4.8.2 discusses ESA 1
considerations for the shutdown of SQN.
2 Unlike the proposed action, no-action alternative, and new nuclear alternative, the NRC does 3
not license wind turbines or solar photovoltaic systems, and the NRC would not be responsible 4
for initiating section 7 consultation if listed species or habitats might be adversely affected under 5
this alternative. The facilities themselves would be responsible for protecting listed species 6
because the ESA forbids the taking of a listed species. If TVA were to implement this 7
alternative, as a Federal agency, TVA would be required to consult with FWS or NMFS under 8
section 7. Similarly, TVA, and not NRC, would be responsible for engaging in EFH consultation 9
with NMFS under the Magnuson-Stevens Act if EFH could be affected by any component of 10 this alternative.
11 Because this alternative would involve several sites throughout the TVA region, the special 12 status species and habitats affected by the action would be different than those considered 13 under the proposed action. The types and magnitudes of adverse impacts to ESA-listed 14 species and EFH would depend on the proposed sites, alternative design, operation, and listed 15 species and habitats present when the alternative is implemented. Therefore, the NRC cannot 16 forecast a particular level of impact for this alternative.
17 4.9 Historic and Cultural Resources 18 This section describes the potential impacts of the proposed action (license renewal) and 19 alternatives to the proposed action on historic and cultural resources.
20 4.9.1 Proposed Action 21 The historic and cultural resource issue applicable to SQN during the license renewal term is 22 listed in Table 4-15. Section 3.9 of this SEIS describes the historic and cultural resources that 23 have the potential to be affected by the proposed action.
24 Table 4-15. Historic and Cultural Resources 25 Issue GEIS Section Category Historic and Cultural Resources 4.7.1 2
Source: Table B-1 in Appendix B, Subpart A, to 10 CFR Part 51 The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA) requires Federal agencies 26 to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and renewing the operating 27 license of a nuclear power plant is an undertaking that could potentially affect historic properties.
28 Historic properties are defined as resources eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic 29 Places (NRHP). The criteria for eligibility are listed in 36 CFR Part 60.4, Criteria for 30 evaluation, and include (1) association with significant events in history, (2) association with the 31 lives of persons significant in the past, (3) embodiment of distinctive characteristics of type, 32 period, or construction, and (4) sites or places that have yielded, or are likely to yield, important 33 information.
34 The historic preservation review process (Section 106 of the NHPA) is outlined in regulations 35 issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) in 36 CFR Part 800, Protection 36 of historic properties.
37
APPENDIX C 1
CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE 2
C
C-1 CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE 1
C.1 Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Consultation 2
C.1.1 Federal Agency Obligations Under ESA Section 7 3
As a Federal agency, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must comply with the 4
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1531 et seq.;
5 herein referred to as ESA), as part of any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the 6
agency, such as the proposed agency action that this supplemental environmental impact 7
statement (SEIS) evaluates: whether to issue renewed licenses for the continued operation of 8
Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (SQN) for an additional 20 years beyond the current 9
license terms. Under section 7 of the ESA, the NRC must consult with the U.S. Fish and 10 Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (referred to jointly as 11 the Services and individually as Service), as appropriate, to ensure that the proposed agency 12 action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 13 species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
14 The ESA and the regulations that implement ESA section 7 (Title 50 of the Code of Federal 15 Regulations (50 CFR) Part 402, Interagency cooperationEndangered Species Act of 1973, 16 as amended) describe the consultation process that Federal agencies must follow in support of 17 agency actions. As part of this process, the Federal agency shall either request that the 18 Services provide a list of any listed or proposed species or designated or proposed critical 19 habitats that may be present in the action area or request that the Services concur with a list of 20 species and critical habitats that the Federal agency has created (50 CFR 402.12(c)). If it is 21 determined that any such species or critical habitats may be present, the Federal agency is to 22 prepare a biological assessment to evaluate the potential effects of the action and determine 23 whether the species or critical habitat are likely to be adversely affected by the action 24 (16 U.S.C. 1536(c); 50 CFR 402.12(a)). Further, biological assessments are required for any 25 agency action that is a major construction activity (50 CFR 402.12(b)), which the ESA 26 regulations define to include major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the 27 human environment under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended 28 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; herein referred to as NEPA) (50 CFR 402.02).
29 Federal agencies may fulfill their obligations to consult with the Services under ESA section 7 30 and to prepare a biological assessment in conjunction with the interagency cooperation 31 procedures required by other statutes, including NEPA (50 CFR 402.06(a)). In such cases, the 32 Federal agency should include the results of the ESA section 7 consultation in the NEPA 33 document (50 CFR 402.06(b)). Accordingly, Section C.1.2 describes the biological assessment 34 prepared for the proposed agency action evaluated in this SEIS, and Section C.1.3 describes 35 the chronology and results of the ESA section 7 consultation.
36 C.1.2 Biological Assessment 37 The NRC considers this SEIS to fulfill its obligation to prepare a biological assessment under 38 ESA section 7. Accordingly, the NRC did not prepare a separate biological assessment for the 39 proposed SQN license renewal.
40 Although the contents of a biological assessment are at the discretion of the Federal agency 41 (50 CFR 402.12(f)), the ESA regulations suggest information that agencies may consider for 42 inclusion. The NRC has considered this information in the following sections.
43
Appendix C C-2 Section 3.8 describes the action area and the Federally listed and proposed species and 1
designated and proposed critical habitat that have the potential to be present in the action area.
2 This section includes information pursuant to 50 CFR 402.12(f)(1), (2), and (3).
3 Section 4.8 provides an assessment of the potential effects of the proposed SQN license 4
renewal on the species and critical habitat present and the NRCs effect determinations, which 5
are consistent with those identified in Section 3.5 of the Endangered Species Consultation 6
Handbook (FWS and NMFS 1998). The NRC also addresses cumulative effects and 7
alternatives to the proposed action. This section includes information pursuant to 8
50 CFR 402.12(f)(4) and (5).
9 C.1.3 Chronology of ESA Section 7 Consultation 10 Upon receipt of Tennessee Valley Authoritys license renewal application, the NRC staff 11 considered whether any Federally listed or proposed species or designated or proposed critical 12 habitats may be present in the action area (as defined at 50 CFR 402.02) for the proposed SQN 13 license renewal. No species under the NMFSs jurisdiction occur within the action area.
14 Therefore, the NRC staff did not consult with the NMFS. With respect to species under the 15 FWSs jurisdiction, the NRC staff compiled a list of ESA-protected species and critical habitats 16 within the vicinity of the facility and requested the FWSs concurrence with this list in 17 accordance with the ESA section 7 regulations at 50 CFR 402.12(c) in a letter dated 18 March 20, 2013. The FWS concurred with the NRC staffs list in its letter dated July 3, 2013.
19 The NRC staff used this list as a starting point for its analysis of effects to Federally listed 20 species and critical habitat, which appears in Sections 3.8 and 4.8 of this SEIS. In Section 3.8, 21 the NRC staff concludes that no ESA-protected species or critical habitat occur in the action 22 area. In Section 4.8, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed agency action would have no 23 effect on any ESA-protected species or critical habitat. FWS (2013) does not typically provide 24 its concurrence with no effect determinations by Federal agencies. Thus, the ESA does not 25 require further informal consultation or the initiation of formal consultation with the FWS for the 26 proposed SQN license renewal. Nonetheless, because this SEIS constitutes the NRCs 27 biological assessment, the NRC staff will submit a copy of this SEIS, upon its issuance, to the 28 FWS for review in accordance with 50 CFR 402.12(j).
29 Table C-1 lists the letters, e-mails, and other correspondence related to the NRCs ESA 30 obligations with respect to its review of the SQN license renewal application. This table will be 31 updated in the final SEIS, as applicable, to include correspondence transpiring between the 32 issuance of the draft and final SEIS.
33
Appendix C C-3 Table C-1. ESA Section 7 Consultation Correspondence 1
Date Sender and Recipient Description ADAMS Accession No.(a)
March 20, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to C. Dohner (FWS)
Request for concurrence with list of Federally listed species and habitats for the proposed SQN license renewal ML13079A186 June 5, 2013 B. Grange (NRC) to M. Jennings (FWS)
Request for update on the status of FWSs review of the NRCs list of Federally listed species and habitats ML13177A193 July 3, 2013 M. Jennings (FWS) to M. Wong (NRC)
Concurrence with NRCs list of Federally listed species and habitats ML13184A228 July 15, 2013 B. Grange (NRC) to R. Sykes (FWS)
Request for clarification on whether to include white fringeless orchid in the NRCs analysis of effects to Federally listed species and habitats ML13197A395 July 15, 2013 R. Sykes (FWS) to B. Grange (NRC)
Reply to request for clarification on whether to include white fringeless orchid in the NRCs analysis of effects to Federally listed species and habitats ML13197A395 (a)
These documents can be accessed through the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at http://adams.nrc.gov/wba/.
C.2 Essential Fish Habitat Consultation 2
The NRC must comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 3
Act, as amended, (16 U.S.C. §1801-1884, herein referred to as Magnuson-Stevens Act) for 4
any actions authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or 5
undertaken that may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH).
6 In Sections 3.8 and 4.8 of this SEIS, the NRC staff concludes that NMFS has not designated 7
EFH under the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the Chickamauga Reservoir, and that the proposed 8
SQN license renewal would have no effect on EFH. Thus, the Magnuson-Stevens Act does not 9
require the NRC to consult with NMFS for the proposed SQN license renewal.
10 C.3 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Consultation 11 The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to consider the effects 12 of their undertakings on historic properties and consult with applicable state and Federal 13 agencies, tribal groups, and individuals and organizations with a demonstrated interest in the 14 undertaking before taking action. Historic properties are defined as resources that are eligible 15 for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The historic preservation review process 16 (Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended) is outlined in 17 regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) in 36 CFR Part 800.
18 In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC has elected to use the NEPA process to comply 19 with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA.
20
Appendix C C-4 Table C-2 lists the chronology of consultations and consultation documents related to the NRC 1
Section 106 review. The NRC staff is required to consult with the noted agencies and 2
organizations in accordance with the statutes listed above.
3 Table C-2. NHPA Correspondence 4
Date Sender and Recipient Description ADAMS Accession No.(a)
March 14, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to R. Nelson (ACHP) Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13058A315 March 14, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to E.P. McIntyre, Jr.,
Tennessee Historical Commission Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13058A180 March 15, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to B. John Baker, Cherokee Nation Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13058A243 March 15, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to B. Anoatubby, The Chickasaw Nation Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13058A243 March 15, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to T. Yargee, Alabama Quassarte Tribal Town Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13058A243 March 15, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to G. Tiger, Muscogee (Creek) Nation Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13058A243 March 15, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to O.C. Sylestine, Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13058A243 March 15, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to G. Scott, Thlopthlocco Tribal Town Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13058A243 March 15, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to G.J. Wallace, Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13058A243 March 15, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to T. Hobia, Kialegee Tribal Town Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13058A243 March 15, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to M. Hicks, Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13058A243 March 15, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to G. Blanchard, Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13058A243 March 15, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to G.G. Wickliffe, United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13058A243 March 15, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to J. E. Billie, Seminole Tribe of Florida Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13058A243
Appendix C C-5 Date Sender and Recipient Description ADAMS Accession No.(a)
March 15, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to L. M. Harjo, Seminole Nation of Oklahoma Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13058A243 March 25, 2013 L. LaRue-Baker, United Keetoowah band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma to E. Larson (NRC)
Response to request for scoping comments ML13084A357 April 30, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to the Eastern Tennessee Historical Society Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13112A141 May 6, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) to The Tennessee Historical Society Request for scoping comments/notification of Section 106 review ML13113A301 (a)These documents can be accessed through the NRCs ADAMS at http://adams.nrc.gov/wba/.
C.4 References 1
50 CFR Part 402. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 402, 2
Interagency cooperationEndangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
3 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq.
4
[FWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Consultations: Frequently Asked Questions.
5 Available at <http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/faq.html#8> (accessed 6
20 June 2014).
7
[FWS and NMFS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998.
8 Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and 9
Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. March 1998. 315 p.
10 Available at <http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/esa_section7_handbook.pdf>
11 (accessed 8 July 2013).
12 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended.
13 16 U.S.C. §1801-1884.
14 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.
15