ML15070A299
| ML15070A299 | |
| 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: ML15070A299 (23) | |
Text
DTE000021 ci;U.S.NRC United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG-1437 Supplement 53 Protecting People and the Environment In the Matter of:
(Fermi Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 3)
Commission Mandatory Hearing Docket#: 05200033 Exhibit#: DTE000021-MA-CM01 Identified : 03/09/2015 Admitted : 03/09/2015 Withdrawn :
Rejected : Stricken :
Other:
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
Affected Environment 1 Crustacean 2 Chickamauga crayfish are threatened in the State of Tennessee but not Federally listed. They 3 have a very small range and are found in the South Chickamauga Creek basin in Hamilton 4 County and in Walker and Whitfield Counties in Georgia. They prefer moderately flowing 5 shallow streams; are usually found under rocks or in leaf litter debris; and are omnivorous 6 scavengers that eat aquatic vegetation, small fish, snails, and aquatic insects (Georgia Museum 7 of Natural History 2008). South Chickamauga Creek enters the Tennessee River downstream 8 of Chickamauga Dam. For this reason, Chickamauga crayfish would not be affected by 9 operation of SQN and are not discussed further in this SEIS.
10 Fish 11 The State deems the highfin carpsucker, the smallest carpsucker in Tennessee, as in need of 12 management for Hamilton County. They live in areas of gravel substrate in relatively clear 13 medium-to-large rivers. Highfin carpsuckers are more susceptible to impoundment and siltation 14 than other carpsuckers and, in Tennessee, are known to persist in the Nolichucky, French 15 Broad, Clinch, Hiwassee, Sequatchie, and Duck River systems (Etnier and Starnes 1993). In 16 2004, TVA found a single individual approximately 5 mi (8 km) upstream from the intake of the 17 SQN plant during an electrofishing survey (TVA 2013d-f).
18 Amphibians 19 Tennessee cave salamanders are listed as threatened. They are found only in the southern 20 Appalachian Mountains of Tennessee, Georgia, and Alabama. They inhabit limestone caves 21 with subterranean waters (SREL 2013). No caves are present on the SQN site. For this 22 reason, the Tennessee cave salamander would not be affected by operation of SQN and is not 23 discussed further in this SEIS.
24 Reintroductions 25 The State of Tennessee and various partner groups are working to reintroduce the lake 26 sturgeon into the upper Tennessee River watershed (TWRA 2013f). Since 2000, the TWRA 27 has stocked over 125,000 lake sturgeon (Tennessee Aquarium 2013) into rivers including the 28 French Broad, Holston, and Tennessee rivers downstream of Douglas and Cherokee 29 Reservoirs (TWRA 2013f). In addition, the Tennessee Aquarium introduced approximately 30 100 lake sturgeon into Nickajack Reservoir between 2010 and 2011 (TWRA 2013a). The 31 sampling studies conducted by TVA between 1999 and 2011 identified a single lake sturgeon, 32 collected in 2003 by gillnet, from the sampling site located upstream of the SQN intake at 33 Tennessee RM 490.5 (TVA 2012c).
34 Lake sturgeon are considered endangered by the State of Tennessee, but are not Federally 35 listed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Lake sturgeon are large fish that can reach 4 m (13 ft) 36 and 310 lb (141 kg). They are slow to mature; first spawning occurs between 14 and 25 years 37 for females and 12 and 20 years for males. Lake sturgeon are considered to be the longest 38 lived North American freshwater fish, with a maximum age estimate of 154 years, although 39 populations in Tennessee would be expected to have a smaller size and shorter life span than 40 those farther north (Etnier and Starnes 1993).
41 3.8 Special Status Species and Habitats 42 This section addresses species and habitats that are Federally protected under the ESA and the 43 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended 44 (16 U.S.C. §1801-1884, herein referred to as Magnuson-Stevens Act). The ESA, along with 45 the Magnuson-Stevens Act, put requirements on Federal agencies such as the NRC. The 3-74
Affected Environment 1 terrestrial and aquatic resource sections of this SEIS (Sections 3.6 and 3.7, respectively) 2 discuss other species and habitats protected by other Federal acts and the State of Tennessee 3 that do not put requirements on the NRC.
4 3.8.1 Species and Habitats Protected Under the Endangered Species Act 5 The FWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) jointly administer the ESA. The 6 FWS manages the protection of, and recovery effort for, listed terrestrial and freshwater 7 species, and NMFS manages the protection of and recovery effort for listed marine and 8 anadromous species. This section describes the action area and considers those species that 9 could occur in the action area under both FWSs and NMFSs jurisdictions. Section 4.8 10 assesses potential impacts to Federally listed species and habitats that could result from the 11 proposed action and alternatives, and Appendix C describes the NRCs consultation with FWS 12 pursuant to section 7 of the ESA.
13 3.8.1.1 Action Area 14 The implementing regulations for section 7(a)(2) of the ESA define action area as all areas 15 affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved 16 in the action (50 CFR 402.02). The action area effectively bounds the analysis of 17 ESA-protected species and habitats because only species that occur within the action area may 18 be affected by the Federal action.
19 For the purposes of the ESA analysis in this SEIS, the NRC staff considers the action area to be 20 the SQN site (described in Sections 3.1 and 3.6) and the Chickamauga Reservoir (described in 21 Section 3.7) from the point of river water intake at the site (at Tennessee River Mile (TRM) 22 485.1) and extending 4.1 mi (6.6 km) downstream to TRM 481.0. This area of the reservoir 23 corresponds to the area over which the thermal plume extends during the summer 24 measurement period (as discussed in Section 4.7). The NRC staff expects all direct and 25 indirect effects of the proposed action to be contained within these areas.
26 The NRC staff recognizes that while the action area is stationary, Federally listed species can 27 move in and out of the action area. For instance, a migratory fish species could occur in the 28 action area seasonally as it travels up and down the river past SQN. Similarly, a flowering plant 29 known to occur near, but outside, of the action area could appear within the action area over 30 time if its seeds are carried into the action area by wind, water, or animals. Thus, in its analysis, 31 the NRC staff considers not only those species known to occur directly within the action area, 32 but those species that occur near the action area. The staff then considers whether the life 33 history of each species makes the species likely to move into the action area where it could be 34 affected by the proposed SQN license renewal.
35 Within the action area, Federally listed terrestrial species could experience impacts such as 36 habitat disturbance associated with refurbishment or other ground-disturbing activities, cooling 37 tower drift, collisions with cooling towers and transmission lines, exposure to radionuclides, and 38 other direct and indirect impacts associated with station, cooling system, and in-scope 39 transmission line operation and maintenance (NRC 2013d). The proposed action has the 40 potential to affect Federally listed aquatic species in several ways: impingement or entrainment 41 of individuals into the cooling system; alteration of the riverine environment through water level 42 reductions, changes in dissolved oxygen, gas supersaturation, eutrophication, and thermal 43 discharges from cooling system operation; habitat loss or alteration from dredging; and 44 exposure to radionuclides (NRC 2013d).
3-75
Affected Environment 1 3.8.1.2 Species and Habitats Under the FWSs Jurisdiction 2 Table 3-19 identifies the species under FWSs jurisdiction that may occur within Hamilton 3 County. Hamilton County includes approximately 369,000 ac (149,000 ha) of varying land uses 4 and habitat types. Thus, a Federally listed species that occurs within Hamilton County does not 5 necessarily occur within the action area. The NRC staff uses this geographical range as a 6 starting point for its analysis because Federally listed species distribution and critical habitat 7 information is readily available at the county level. Additionally, the action area is a small area 8 of land near the center of and wholly contained within the geographical boundaries of the 9 county. Following the table, descriptions of each species include a determination of whether 10 each species occurs in the action area based on the species habitat requirements, life history, 11 and available occurrence information.
12 The NRC compiled the list of species in Table 3-19 from the FWSs Endangered Species 13 Program online database (FWS 2014); correspondence between the NRC and the FWS 14 (FWS 2013b, 2013c; NRC 2013g); information from TVAs ER (TVA 2013n) and Natural 15 Heritage Database (TVA 2013j); and available scientific studies, surveys, and literature.
16 The NRC staff did not identify any candidate species or proposed or designated critical habitats 17 within the action area.
3-76
Affected Environment 1 Table 3-19. Federally Listed Species in Hamilton County, TN (a) Federal Species Common Name Habitat Status Mammals limestone karst areas within the Myotis grisescens gray bat Endangered southeastern United States Hardwood forests; caves and Myotis septentrionalis northern long-eared bat Protected mines with cool, moist air Hardwood forests and hardwood-pine forests; old-Myotis sodalis Indiana bat Endangered growth forest; agricultural lands, and old fields Fish Sand and gravel shoals of Percuba tanasi snail darter Threatened moderately flowing, vegetated, large creeks Freshwater Mussels Medium to large rivers with riffles and shoals with relatively Dromus dromas dromedary pearlymussel Endangered firm rubble, gravel, and stable substrates Generally a large river species, preferring sand-gravel or rocky Lampsilis abrupta pink mucket Endangered substrates with moderate to strong currents Large rivers in sand-gravel-Plethobasus cooperianus orangefoot pimpleback Endangered cobble substrates in riffles and shoals in deep flowing water Medium to large rivers in sand, Pleurobema plenum rough pigtoe Endangered gravel, and cobble substrates of shoals Plants Hardwood or conifer-hardwood Isotria medeoloides small whorled pogonia Threatened forest floors near stream beds Mid- to late-successional forests Scutellaria montana large-flowered skullcap Threatened dominated by oak and pine trees Floodplains, riverbanks, and other riparian habitat in the Spiraea virginiana Virginia spiraea Threatened 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 3-77
Affected Environment 1 Gray Bat (Myotis grisescens) 2 The FWS listed the gray bat as endangered in 1976 (40 FR 17590). No critical habitat has been 3 designated for this species. White nose syndrome, human disturbance, water impoundments, 4 and other activities resulting in loss of habitat are factors that have contributed to this species 5 decline. Unless otherwise indicated, information on this species below is derived from the 6 FWSs Gray Bat Recovery Plan (Brady et al. 1982).
7 The gray bat is the largest Myotis species with a wingspan of 40 to 46 mm (1.7 to 1.8 in.), and it 8 is distinguishable from other bat species by its unicolor dorsal fur, which is dark gray after 9 molting in July and August and chesnut brown to russet between moltings. The species mainly 10 inhabits five states in the southeastern United States (Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, 11 and Tennessee) and is also found in small numbers as far north as Illinois and as far south as 12 northwestern Florida. Distribution of the species has always been patchy, but fragmentation 13 and isolation of populations has increased as the species has become more in danger of 14 extinction.
15 Gray bats migrate seasonally between hibernating and maternity caves. Upon arrival at 16 hibernating caves in September through early October, adults mate and enter hibernaculum.
17 Adults emerge beginning in late March, at which time they migrate to summer habitat. Mortality 18 is typically high during this time because fat reserves and food supplies are low. Summer 19 colonies occupy traditional home ranges that include a maternal cave and several roost caves 20 typically located along a river or reservoir. Hibernating females store sperm until spring, and 21 give birth to one pup in late May or early June. Females raise young in maternity colonies.
22 Gray bats possess very specific microclimate requirements and are limited to limestone karst 23 areas, typically within 1 km (0.6 mi) of rivers or reservoirs. Foraging territories may include 24 lands farther from water. Brady et al. (1982) indicates that because of its habitat requirements, 25 the species is restricted to fewer than five percent of available caves, and in 1982, 95 percent of 26 the known population hibernated in only nine caves each winter. In 1982, the gray bat 27 population was estimated to include 1,575,000 individuals, of which 300,000 individuals were 28 located in Tennessee. Mitchell and Martin (2002) estimated the population to have risen to 29 2.3 million bats by 2001.
30 In a final environmental statement for operation of Watts Bar 2 in Rhea County (located 31 mi 31 [50 km] north of SQN), the NRC (2013b) found that gray bats are known to roost in two caves 32 near the Watts Bar 2 site. The gray bat has also been documented within the Chickamauga 33 and Chattanooga National Military Park according to a FWS (2012) press release announcing 34 the discovery of white-nose syndrome in a park cave. The Military Park includes lands in 35 Hamilton County, Tennessee, and Catoosa, Dade, and Walker Counties, Georgia. Three caves 36 exist near the action area (within 6 mi (10 km) of the SQN site): Posey Cave, Havens Cave, 37 and Harrison Bluff Cave (TVA 2013a). However, none of these caves are associated with 38 occurrences of Federally listed species (TVA 2013a, 2013b). Additionally, during the NRC 39 staffs environmental site audit, TVA provided NRC staff with records for review from its Natural 40 Heritage Database, which included detailed occurrence information on Federally listed species, 41 State-listed species, and other special status species throughout the TVA power service area.
42 The NRC reviewed database records of species and habitat occurrences within a 6-mi (10-km) 43 radius of the SQN site and found that TVA (2013b) has not identified the gray bat within this 44 area.
45 Given the available information, the NRC staff concludes that the gray bat is unlikely to occur 46 within the action area.
3-78
Affected Environment 1 Northern Long-Eared Bat (Myotis septentrionalis) 2 The FWS published a proposed rule to list the northern long-eared bat as endangered 3 throughout its range on December 2, 2013 (78 FR 72058). The FWS did not propose to 4 designate critical habitat for the species because it found that such habitat is not determinable 5 at this time (78 FR 61046). White nose syndrome, wind energy development, and loss of 6 habitat specifically linked to surface coal mining in prime summer habitat are factors that have 7 contributed to this species decline. Unless otherwise indicated, information on this species is 8 derived from the FWSs Federal Register notice for the proposed rule to list the species 9 (78 FR 61046).
10 The northern long-eared bat is a medium-sized bat that is distinguished from other Myotis 11 species by its long ears, which average 0.7 in. (17 mm) in length. This bat inhabits 39 states in 12 the eastern and north central United States and all Canadian provinces west to the southern 13 Yukon Territory and eastern British Columbia. Populations tend to be patchily distributed and 14 are typically composed of small numbers. More than 780 winter hibernacula have been 15 recorded in the United States (11 in Tennessee), most of which contain only a few (1 to 3) 16 individuals. The FWS recognizes four United States populations, and northern long-eared bats 17 inhabiting Tennessee are considered part of the Southern population. The northern long-eared 18 bat is less common in the southern portion of its range than in the northern portion of the range.
19 Thompson (2006) considers the species common within Tennessee, and in 2010, individuals 20 were caught in summer mist-net surveys as well as observed in 11 caves during Tennessee 21 hibernacula censuses. The proximity of these occurrences to the SQN site is unknown because 22 survey locations are not provided in the proposed rule or otherwise published.
23 In summer, northern long-eared bats roost alone or in small colonies under the bark of live or 24 dead trees; in caves or mines; or in man-made structures, such as barns, sheds, and other 25 buildings. The species opportunistically roosts in a variety of trees, including several species of 26 oaks, maples, beech, and pine. Northern long-eared bats forage both in-flight and on the 27 ground and eat a variety of moths, flies, leafhoppers, caddisflies, and beetles. The species 28 breeds from late July to early October, after which time it will migrate to winter hibernacula.
29 Northern long-eared bats are short-distance migrators and will travel 35 to 55 mi (56 to 89 km) 30 from summer roosts to winter hibernacula. Hibernating females store sperm until spring, and 31 give birth to one pup approximately 60 days after fertilization. Females raise young in maternity 32 colonies of up to 30 individuals.
33 The action area does not contain suitable habitat for hibernation. As indicated in the description 34 of the gray bat, three caves exist near the action area, but none of the caves are associated 35 with occurrences of Federally listed species (TVA 2013a, 2013b). For roosting and foraging, 36 over half of the action area is developed or composed of unsuitable habitat types. The 37 remainder of the action area includes approximately 278 ac (113 ha) of suitable habitat types:
38 150 ac (60 ha) of forest habitat of various types; 120 ac (50 ha) of grasslands or agricultural 39 lands; and 8 ac (3 ha) of wooded wetlands (TVA 2013a). However, none of the available FWS 40 records indicate occurrences of hibernacula, maternity colonies, or individual northern long-41 eared bats in the action area or in the larger geographical area of Hamilton County.
42 Additionally, during the NRC staffs environmental site audit, TVA provided NRC staff with 43 records for review from its Natural Heritage Database, which included detailed occurrence 44 information on Federally listed species, State-listed and other special status species throughout 45 the TVA power service area. The NRC reviewed database records of species and habitat 46 occurrences within a 6-mi (10-km) radius of the SQN site and found that TVA (2013b) has not 47 identified northern long-eared bat hibernacula, maternity colonies, or individuals within this area.
3-79
Affected Environment 1 Given the available information, the NRC staff concludes that the northern long-eared bat is 2 unlikely to occur within the action area.
3 Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) 4 The FWS listed the Indiana bat as endangered in 1967 (32 FR 4001). The FWS designated 5 critical habitat for the Indiana bat in 1976 (41 FR 41914) to include 11 caves and 2 mines in 6 six states including a cave in Blount County, Tennessee. No critical habitat for this species 7 occurs in Hamilton County.
8 The Indiana bat is an insectivorous, migratory bat that inhabits the central portion of the eastern 9 United States and hibernates colonially in caves and mines. The decline of Indiana bats is 10 attributed to urban expansion, habitat loss and degradation, human-caused disturbance of 11 caves or mines, insecticide poisoning, and white nose syndrome (FWS 2007, 2011).
12 During summer months, reproductive female bats tend to roost in colonies under slabs of 13 peeling tree bark or cracks within trees in forest fragments, often near agricultural areas 14 (FWS 2007). Colonies may also inhabit closed-canopy, bottomland deciduous forest; riparian 15 habitats; wooded wetlands and floodplains; and upland communities (FWS 2007). Maternity 16 colonies typically consist of 60 to 80 adult females (Whitaker and Brack 2002). Colonies occupy 17 multiple trees for roosting and rearing young (Watrous et al. 2006) and, once established, 18 usually return to the same areas each year (FWS 2007). Nonreproductive females and males 19 do not roost in colonies during the summer; they may remain near the hibernacula or migrate to 20 summer habitat (FWS 2007). High-quality summer habitat includes mature forest stands 21 containing open subcanopies, multiple moderate- to high-quality snags, and trees with 22 exfoliating bark (Farmer et al. 2002). In summer, bats forage for insects along forest edges, 23 riparian areas, and in semiopen forested habitats. In the winter, Indiana bats rely on caves for 24 hibernation. The species prefers hibernacula in areas with karst (limestone, dolomite, and 25 gypsum) and may also use other cave-like locations, such as mines.
26 The FWSs Indiana Bat Recovery Plan (FWS 2007) indicates that Indiana bats are distributed 27 across 21 Tennessee counties. Thirty-four winter hibernacula (21 extant, 7 of uncertain status, 28 and 6 historic) are located throughout these counties. Three extant maternity colonies occur in 29 Blount and Monroe Counties. Additionally, adult males and/or nonreproductive females have 30 been captured during summer surveys within 9 of the 21 counties. In 2007, the FWS estimated 31 that Tennessees total population of Indiana bats was 8,906 individuals (FWS 2009). According 32 to more recent estimates based on winter surveys conducted in January and February of 2013, 33 the FWS (2013d) estimate that the Tennessee population of Indiana bats is currently 34 15,537 individuals.
35 The action area does not contain suitable habitat for hibernation. As indicated in the description 36 of the gray bat, three caves exist near the action area, but none of the caves are associated 37 with occurrences of Federally listed species (TVA 2013j, 2013n). For roosting and foraging, 38 over half of the action area is developed or composed of unsuitable habitat types. The 39 remainder of the action area includes approximately 278 ac (113 ha) of suitable habitat types:
40 150 ac (60 ha) of forest habitat of various types; 120 ac (50 ha) of grasslands or agricultural 41 lands; and 8 ac (3 ha) of wooded wetlands (TVA 2013n). However, none of the available FWS 42 records indicate occurrences of hibernacula, maternity colonies, or individual Indiana bats in the 43 action area or in the larger geographical area of Hamilton County. Additionally, during the NRC 44 staffs environmental site audit, TVA provided NRC staff with records for review from its Natural 45 Heritage Database, which included detailed occurrence information on Federally listed species 46 throughout the TVA power service area. The NRC reviewed database records of species and 47 habitat occurrences within a 6-mi (10-km) radius of the SQN site and found that TVA (2013j) 48 has not identified Indiana bat hibernacula, maternity colonies, or individuals within this area.
3-80
Affected Environment 1 Given the available information, the NRC staff concludes that the Indiana bat is unlikely to occur 2 within the action area.
3 Snail Darter (Percina tanasi) 4 The FWS listed the snail darter as endangered in 1975 (40 FR 47505) and reclassified the 5 species as threatened in 1984 after additional populations were identified in several 6 Tennessee River tributaries and reservoirs (FWS 2013e). The FWS designated critical habitat 7 for the species in the Little Tennessee River at the time of listing. However, creation of 8 Tellico Dam destroyed the darters entire critical habitat area, and the FWS rescinded the critical 9 habitat designation upon reclassifying the species as threatened in 1984 (FWS undated d).
10 Snail darters inhabit larger creeks where they frequent sand and gravel shoal areas in low 11 turbidity water. They are also found in deeper portions of rivers and reservoirs where current is 12 present (Etnier and Starnes 1993). The FWS believes the snail darter originally inhabited the 13 main stem of the Tennessee River and possibly ranged from the Holston, French Broad, 14 Lower Clinch, and Hiwassee rivers downstream within the Tennessee drainage to northern 15 Alabama (FWS undated d). However, impoundments have fragmented much of the species 16 range (Etnier and Starnes 1993). The FWS (2013e) has records of the snail darter occurring in 17 Chickamauga Reservoir in Hamilton, Meigs, and Rhea Counties in 1976 (before the 18 construction of SQN). TVA has not collected the species during its stream samplings of 19 tributaries to the Tennessee River within Chickamauga Reservoir in the available data years 20 (1995-2009) (Simmons 2010b). The NRC staffs review of records from the TVA (2013j) 21 Natural Heritage Database also did not identify information that would suggest the species 22 occurs in vicinity of the plant. Furthermore, the snail darters habitat requirements make it 23 unlikely to occur in the portion of Chickamauga Reservoir within the action area.
24 Given the available information, the NRC staff concludes that the snail darter is unlikely to occur 25 within the action area.
26 Dromedary Pearlymussel (Dromus dromas) 27 The FWS listed the dromedary pearlymussel as endangered in 1976 (41 FR 24062). The FWS 28 has not designated critical habitat for this species.
29 The dromedary pearlymussel is a medium-sized freshwater mussel with a yellowish green shell 30 that has two sets of broken green rays. Juveniles and adults inhabit riffles on sand and gravel 31 substrates with stable rubble within small to medium streams that have low turbidity and high to 32 moderate gradients. Individuals have also been observed in slower waters and to depths of 33 5.5 m (18 ft). The species has as many as 11 glochidial (larval) hosts. The fantail darter 34 (Etheostoma flabellare) is a known host, and laboratory studies indicate that the following 35 species may also be hosts: banded darter (E. zonale), tangerine darter (Percina aurantiaca),
36 logperch (P. caprodes), gilt darter (P. evides), black sculpin (Cottus baileyi), greenside darter 37 (E. blennioides), snubnose darter (E. simoterum), blotchside logperch (P. burtoni), channel 38 darter (P. copelandi), and Roanoke darter (P. roanoka) (FWS undated a).
39 Dromedary pearlymussels, which were historically widespread in the Cumberland and 40 Tennessee River systems, have been eliminated from the majority of the species historic 41 riverine habitat because of impoundments. Only three reproducing populations are thought to 42 exist: one in the upper Clinch River, Tennessee; one in the Powell River, Tennessee; and one 43 in Virginia above Norris Reservoir (NatureServe 2013a).
44 TVAs (2013j) Natural Heritage Database records indicate that one dromedary pearlymussel 45 individual was identified near the mouth of Soddy Creek (approximately 2.4 mi (4 km) upstream 46 of the action area) in a 1918 publication by A.E. Ortmann. The most recent observation of a 3-81
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 1 required to comply with the States NPDES permitting. If the site selected is a greenfield site, a 2 new intake and discharge system would be required. If it is located at an existing nuclear site, 3 such as the Bellefonte site in Alabama, the available infrastructure could be used in its current 4 configuration or be modified or expanded. Any dredging or in-water work at sites other than on 5 the Tennessee River or its tributaries, which are controlled by TVA, could require permits from 6 USACE pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). Other 7 USACE permits could be required, depending on the location of the site. Dredging activities 8 would also require BMPs for in-water work to minimize sedimentation and erosion. Due to the 9 short-term nature of the dredging activities, the effect on the aquatic habitats would likely be 10 relatively localized and temporary (recovery time for aquatic communities typically takes several 11 years).
12 The new nuclear units would use a closed-cycle cooling system so that water consumption 13 would be less than for the SQN units, which operate in open-cycle and helper modes. As a 14 result, the withdrawal of water and the thermal input from the discharge would be less than for 15 the SQN units. This in turn would reduce entrainment, impingement, and thermal impacts to 16 aquatic organisms. Without knowing the location of the new nuclear units and the aquatic 17 species and their ecosystem interactions, NRC staff cannot assume that the overall impacts of 18 operation of a new nuclear unit would be less than those for the license renewal term at the 19 SQN site. Impacts on aquatic organisms from construction and operation of a new nuclear 20 facility would be SMALL to MODERATE.
21 4.7.6 Combination Alternative - Aquatic Resources 22 The staff assumes that construction activities for the combination alternative would occur at 23 another site, other than the SQN site, and could affect drainage areas or other onsite aquatic 24 features. The NRC staff assumes TVA will implement BMPs to minimize erosion and 25 sedimentation in nearby streams, ponds, or rivers. The States NPDES permitting would require 26 stormwater control measures. During operations, the land-based wind and solar alternative 27 would not require withdrawal of water or consumptive water use. Thus, the impacts on aquatic 28 ecology from the land-based wind and solar combination alternative would be SMALL.
29 4.8 Special Status Species and Habitats 30 This section describes the potential impacts of the proposed action (license renewal) and 31 alternatives to the proposed action on special status species and habitats.
32 4.8.1 Proposed Action 33 The special status species and habitats issue applicable to SQN during the license renewal 34 term is listed in Table 4-13. Section 3.8 of this SEIS describes the special status species and 35 habitats that have the potential to be affected by the proposed action. The discussion of 36 species and habitats protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA),
37 includes a description of the action area as defined by the ESA section 7 regulations at 38 50 CFR Part 402.02. The action area encompasses all areas that would be directly or indirectly 39 affected by the proposed SQN license renewal.
40 Appendix C.1 contains information on the NRC staffs section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish 41 and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the proposed action. The NRC did not consult with the National 42 Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as part of the SQN license renewal review because (as 43 described in Section 3.8 and 4.8.1.1) no species or habitats under NMFSs jurisdiction occur 44 within the action area.
4-44
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 1 Table 4-13. Special Status Species and Habitats Issue GEIS Section Category Threatened, endangered, and protected species, critical habitat, and 4.6.1.3 2 essential fish habitat Source: Table B-1 in Appendix B, Subpart A, to 10 CFR Part 51 2 4.8.1.1 Species and Habitats Protected under the Endangered Species Act 3 Species and Habitats under FWS Jurisdiction 4 Section 3.8 considers whether the 11 Federally listed and proposed species identified in 5 Table 4-14 occur in the action area based on each species habitat requirements, life history, 6 scientific surveys and studies, and other available information. In that section, the NRC staff 7 concludes that none of these species are likely to occur in the action area. The NRC staff also 8 concludes that no candidate species (CS) or proposed or designated critical habitat occur in the 9 action area. Thus, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would have no effect on 10 Federally listed species or habitats under FWSs jurisdiction.
11 Table 4-14. Effect Determinations for Federally Listed Species Federal Effect Species Common Name (a)
Status 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 4-45
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 1 If in the future a Federally listed species is observed on the SQN site, the NRC has measures in 2 place to ensure that NRC staff would be appropriately notified. SQNs operating licenses, 3 Appendix B, Environmental Protection Plan, Section 4.1.1 (NRC 1980, 1981) require TVA to 4 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 5 SQN site. Additionally, the NRCs regulations containing notification requirements require that 6 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, 7 related toprotection of the environment, for which a news release is planned or notification to 8 other government agencies has been or will be made (10 CFR Part 50.72(b)(2)(xi)). Such 9 notifications include reports regarding Federally listed species, as described in Section 3.2.12 of 10 NUREG-1022 (NRC 2013b). Further, as a Federal agency, TVA has the responsibility to 11 comply with section 7 of the ESA if listed species or effects of the action are identified that were 12 not previously considered.
13 Species and Habitats under NMFSs Jurisdiction 14 As discussed in Section 3.8, no species or habitats under NMFSs jurisdiction occur within the 15 action area. Thus, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed action would have no effect on 16 Federally listed species or habitats under NMFSs jurisdiction.
17 Cumulative Effects 18 The ESA regulations at 50 CFR Part 402.12(f)(4) direct Federal agencies to consider cumulative 19 effects as part of the proposed action effects analysis. Under the ESA, cumulative effects are 20 defined as those effects of future State or private activities, not involving Federal activities, that 21 are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to 22 consultation (50 CFR Part 402.02). Unlike the NEPA definition of cumulative impacts (see 23 Section 4.16), cumulative effects under the ESA do not include past actions or other Federal 24 actions requiring separate ESA section 7 consultation. When formulating biological opinions 25 under formal section 7 consultation, the FWS and NMFS (1998) consider cumulative effects 26 when determining the likelihood of jeopardy or adverse modification. Therefore, consideration 27 of cumulative effects under the ESA is necessary only if listed species will be adversely affected 28 by the proposed action (FWS 2014).
29 In the case of SQN, because the NRC staff concluded earlier in this section that the proposed 30 license renewal would have no effect on listed, proposed, or CS or on designated or proposed 31 critical habitat, consideration of cumulative effects is not necessary.
32 4.8.1.2 Species and Habitats Protected under the Magnuson-Stevens Act 33 As discussed in Section 3.8, NMFS has not designated essential fish habitat (EFH) pursuant to 34 the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended 35 (Magnuson-Stevens Act) in the Chickamauga Reservoir. Thus, the NRC staff concludes that 36 the proposed action would have no effect on EFH.
37 4.8.2 No-Action Alternative - Special Status Species and Habitats 38 Under the no-action alternative, SQN would shut down. Federally listed species and designated 39 critical habitat can be affected not only by operation of nuclear power plants but also by 40 activities during shutdown. The ESA action area for the no-action alternative would most likely 41 be the same or similar to the action area described in Section 3.8. Because the plant would 42 require substantially less cooling water, potential impacts to aquatic species and habitats would 43 be reduced, although the plant would still require some cooling water for some time. Changes 44 in land use and other shutdown activities might affect terrestrial species differently than under 45 continued operation.
4-46
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 1 Because no Federally listed species or habitats occur in the action area, the no-action 2 alternative would likely have no effect on any such species or habitats. However, NRC would 3 assess the need for ESA consultation upon plant shutdown. The ESA forbids the taking of a 4 listed species, where to take means harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 5 capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. In the case of a take, ESA 6 section 7 requires that NRC initiate consultation with the FWS or NMFS. The implementing 7 regulations at 50 CFR Part 402.16 also direct Federal agencies to reinitiate consultation in 8 circumstances where (a) the incidental take limit in a biological opinion is exceeded, (b) new 9 information reveals effects to Federally listed species or designated critical habitats that were 10 not previously considered, (c) the action is modified in a manner that causes effects not 11 previously considered, or (d) new species are listed or new critical habitat is designated that 12 may be affected by the action. An ESA Section 7 consultation could identify impacts on 13 Federally listed species or critical habitat, require monitoring and mitigation to minimize such 14 impacts, and provide a level of exempted takes. Regulations and guidance regarding the ESA 15 Section 7 consultation process are provided in 50 CFR Part 402 and in the Endangered Species 16 Consultation Handbook (FWS and NMFS 1998). Upon shutdown, if the NRC determined that 17 the no-action alternative would result in take of listed species or that one or more of the 18 reinitiation criteria at 50 CFR Part 402.16 would be met, the NRC would reinitiate consultation, 19 as appropriate, with FWS at that time. TVA, as a Federal agency, would also have 20 responsibilities under section 7 of the ESA upon SQN shutdown.
21 The effects on ESA-listed aquatic species would likely be smaller than the effects under 22 continued operation but would depend on the listed species and habitats present when the 23 alternative is implemented. The types and magnitudes of adverse impacts to terrestrial 24 ESA-listed species would depend on the shutdown activities and the listed species and habitats 25 present when the alternative is implemented, and thus, the NRC cannot forecast a particular 26 level of impact for this alternative.
27 The no-action alternative would not affect EFH because NMFS has not designated EFH in the 28 Chickamauga Reservoir.
29 4.8.3 NGCC Alternative - Special Status Species and Habitats 30 This alternative entails shutdown and decommissioning of SQN and construction of a new 31 NGCC alternative at an existing power plant site other than the SQN site or at a brownfield site 32 with available infrastructure in the TVA region. Section 4.8.2 discusses ESA considerations for 33 the shutdown of SQN.
34 Unlike the proposed action, no-action alternative, and new nuclear alternative, the NRC does 35 not license NGCC facilities, and the NRC would not be responsible for initiating section 7 36 consultation if listed species or habitats might be adversely affected under this alternative. The 37 facilities themselves would be responsible for protecting listed species because the ESA forbids 38 the taking of a listed species. If TVA were to implement the NGCC alternative, as a Federal 39 agency, TVA would be required to consult with FWS or NMFS under section 7. Similarly, TVA, 40 and not NRC, would be responsible for engaging in EFH consultation with NMFS under the 41 Magnuson-Stevens Act if EFH could be affected by construction or operation of the NGCC 42 alternative.
43 Because the NGCC alternative would be built on an existing power plant site other than the 44 SQN site, the special status species and habitats affected by the action would be different than 45 those considered under the proposed action. The types and magnitudes of adverse impacts to 46 ESA-listed species and EFH would depend on the proposed site, plant design, operation, and 4-47
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 1 listed species and habitats present when the alternative is implemented. Therefore, the NRC 2 cannot forecast a particular level of impact for this alternative.
3 4.8.4 SCPC Alternative - Special Status Species and Habitats 4 This alternative entails shutdown and decommissioning of SQN and construction of a new 5 SCPC alternative at an existing power plant site other than the SQN site or at a brownfield site 6 with available infrastructure in the TVA region. Section 4.8.2 discusses ESA considerations for 7 the shutdown of SQN.
8 Unlike the proposed action, no-action alternative, and new nuclear alternative, the NRC does 9 not license SCPC facilities, and the NRC would not be responsible for initiating section 7 10 consultation if listed species or habitats might be adversely affected under this alternative. The 11 facilities themselves would be responsible for protecting listed species because the ESA forbids 12 the taking of a listed species. If TVA were to implement the NGCC alternative, as a Federal 13 agency, TVA would be required to consult with FWS or NMFS under section 7. Similarly, TVA, 14 and not NRC, would be responsible for engaging in EFH consultation with NMFS under the 15 Magnuson-Stevens Act if EFH could be affected by construction or operation of the NGCC 16 alternative.
17 Because the SCPC alternative would be built on an existing power plant site other than the SQN 18 site, the special status species and habitats affected by the action would be different than those 19 considered under the proposed action. The types and magnitudes of adverse impacts to ESA-20 listed species and EFH would depend on the proposed site, plant design, operation, and listed 21 species and habitats present when the alternative is implemented. Therefore, the NRC cannot 22 forecast a particular level of impact for this alternative.
23 4.8.5 New Nuclear Alternative - Special Status Species and Habitats 24 This alternative entails shutdown and decommissioning of SQN and construction of a new 25 nuclear alternative at an existing power plant site other than the SQN site in the TVA region.
26 Section 4.8.2 discusses ESA considerations for the shutdown of SQN.
27 The NRC would remain the licensing agency under this alternative, and thus, the ESA would 28 require NRC to initiate consultation with the FWS and NMFS, as applicable, prior to construction 29 to ensure that the construction and operation of the new nuclear plant would not adversely 30 affect any Federally listed species or adversely modify or destroy designated critical habitat. If 31 the new nuclear plant is sited in an area that could affect water bodies with designated EFH, the 32 Magnuson-Stevens Act would require the NRC to consult with NMFS to evaluate potential 33 impacts to that habitat. TVA, as a Federal agency, would have consultation responsibilities 34 under the ESA and Magnuson-Stevens Act.
35 Because the new nuclear alternative would be built on an existing power plant site other than 36 the SQN site, the special status species and habitats affected by the action would be different 37 than those considered under the proposed action. The types and magnitudes of adverse 38 impacts to ESA-listed species and EFH would depend on the proposed site, plant design, 39 operation, and listed species and habitats present when the alternative is implemented.
40 Therefore, the NRC cannot forecast a particular level of impact for this alternative.
41 4.8.6 Combination Alternative - Special Status Species and Habitats 42 This alternative entails shutdown and decommissioning of SQN and construction and operation 43 of wind turbines, possibly outside of the TVA region through purchased power agreements, and 4-48
Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions 1 solar photovoltaic systems throughout the TVA region. Section 4.8.2 discusses ESA 2 considerations for the shutdown of SQN.
3 Unlike the proposed action, no-action alternative, and new nuclear alternative, the NRC does 4 not license wind turbines or solar photovoltaic systems, and the NRC would not be responsible 5 for initiating section 7 consultation if listed species or habitats might be adversely affected under 6 this alternative. The facilities themselves would be responsible for protecting listed species 7 because the ESA forbids the taking of a listed species. If TVA were to implement this 8 alternative, as a Federal agency, TVA would be required to consult with FWS or NMFS under 9 section 7. Similarly, TVA, and not NRC, would be responsible for engaging in EFH consultation 10 with NMFS under the Magnuson-Stevens Act if EFH could be affected by any component of 11 this alternative.
12 Because this alternative would involve several sites throughout the TVA region, the special 13 status species and habitats affected by the action would be different than those considered 14 under the proposed action. The types and magnitudes of adverse impacts to ESA-listed 15 species and EFH would depend on the proposed sites, alternative design, operation, and listed 16 species and habitats present when the alternative is implemented. Therefore, the NRC cannot 17 forecast a particular level of impact for this alternative.
18 4.9 Historic and Cultural Resources 19 This section describes the potential impacts of the proposed action (license renewal) and 20 alternatives to the proposed action on historic and cultural resources.
21 4.9.1 Proposed Action 22 The historic and cultural resource issue applicable to SQN during the license renewal term is 23 listed in Table 4-15. Section 3.9 of this SEIS describes the historic and cultural resources that 24 have the potential to be affected by the proposed action.
25 Table 4-15. Historic and Cultural Resources 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 26 The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA) requires Federal agencies 27 to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and renewing the operating 28 license of a nuclear power plant is an undertaking that could potentially affect historic properties.
29 Historic properties are defined as resources eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic 30 Places (NRHP). The criteria for eligibility are listed in 36 CFR Part 60.4, Criteria for 31 evaluation, and include (1) association with significant events in history, (2) association with the 32 lives of persons significant in the past, (3) embodiment of distinctive characteristics of type, 33 period, or construction, and (4) sites or places that have yielded, or are likely to yield, important 34 information.
35 The historic preservation review process (Section 106 of the NHPA) is outlined in regulations 36 issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) in 36 CFR Part 800, Protection 37 of historic properties.
4-49
1 APPENDIX C 2 CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE C
1 CONSULTATION CORRESPONDENCE 2 C.1 Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Consultation 3 C.1.1 Federal Agency Obligations Under ESA Section 7 4 As a Federal agency, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must comply with the 5 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1531 et seq.;
6 herein referred to as ESA), as part of any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the 7 agency, such as the proposed agency action that this supplemental environmental impact 8 statement (SEIS) evaluates: whether to issue renewed licenses for the continued operation of 9 Sequoyah Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (SQN) for an additional 20 years beyond the current 10 license terms. Under section 7 of the ESA, the NRC must consult with the U.S. Fish and 11 Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (referred to jointly as 12 the Services and individually as Service), as appropriate, to ensure that the proposed agency 13 action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 14 species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
15 The ESA and the regulations that implement ESA section 7 (Title 50 of the Code of Federal 16 Regulations (50 CFR) Part 402, Interagency cooperationEndangered Species Act of 1973, 17 as amended) describe the consultation process that Federal agencies must follow in support of 18 agency actions. As part of this process, the Federal agency shall either request that the 19 Services provide a list of any listed or proposed species or designated or proposed critical 20 habitats that may be present in the action area or request that the Services concur with a list of 21 species and critical habitats that the Federal agency has created (50 CFR 402.12(c)). If it is 22 determined that any such species or critical habitats may be present, the Federal agency is to 23 prepare a biological assessment to evaluate the potential effects of the action and determine 24 whether the species or critical habitat are likely to be adversely affected by the action 25 (16 U.S.C. 1536(c); 50 CFR 402.12(a)). Further, biological assessments are required for any 26 agency action that is a major construction activity (50 CFR 402.12(b)), which the ESA 27 regulations define to include major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the 28 human environment under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended 29 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; herein referred to as NEPA) (50 CFR 402.02).
30 Federal agencies may fulfill their obligations to consult with the Services under ESA section 7 31 and to prepare a biological assessment in conjunction with the interagency cooperation 32 procedures required by other statutes, including NEPA (50 CFR 402.06(a)). In such cases, the 33 Federal agency should include the results of the ESA section 7 consultation in the NEPA 34 document (50 CFR 402.06(b)). Accordingly, Section C.1.2 describes the biological assessment 35 prepared for the proposed agency action evaluated in this SEIS, and Section C.1.3 describes 36 the chronology and results of the ESA section 7 consultation.
37 C.1.2 Biological Assessment 38 The NRC considers this SEIS to fulfill its obligation to prepare a biological assessment under 39 ESA section 7. Accordingly, the NRC did not prepare a separate biological assessment for the 40 proposed SQN license renewal.
41 Although the contents of a biological assessment are at the discretion of the Federal agency 42 (50 CFR 402.12(f)), the ESA regulations suggest information that agencies may consider for 43 inclusion. The NRC has considered this information in the following sections.
C-1
Appendix C 1 Section 3.8 describes the action area and the Federally listed and proposed species and 2 designated and proposed critical habitat that have the potential to be present in the action area.
3 This section includes information pursuant to 50 CFR 402.12(f)(1), (2), and (3).
4 Section 4.8 provides an assessment of the potential effects of the proposed SQN license 5 renewal on the species and critical habitat present and the NRCs effect determinations, which 6 are consistent with those identified in Section 3.5 of the Endangered Species Consultation 7 Handbook (FWS and NMFS 1998). The NRC also addresses cumulative effects and 8 alternatives to the proposed action. This section includes information pursuant to 9 50 CFR 402.12(f)(4) and (5).
10 C.1.3 Chronology of ESA Section 7 Consultation 11 Upon receipt of Tennessee Valley Authoritys license renewal application, the NRC staff 12 considered whether any Federally listed or proposed species or designated or proposed critical 13 habitats may be present in the action area (as defined at 50 CFR 402.02) for the proposed SQN 14 license renewal. No species under the NMFSs jurisdiction occur within the action area.
15 Therefore, the NRC staff did not consult with the NMFS. With respect to species under the 16 FWSs jurisdiction, the NRC staff compiled a list of ESA-protected species and critical habitats 17 within the vicinity of the facility and requested the FWSs concurrence with this list in 18 accordance with the ESA section 7 regulations at 50 CFR 402.12(c) in a letter dated 19 March 20, 2013. The FWS concurred with the NRC staffs list in its letter dated July 3, 2013.
20 The NRC staff used this list as a starting point for its analysis of effects to Federally listed 21 species and critical habitat, which appears in Sections 3.8 and 4.8 of this SEIS. In Section 3.8, 22 the NRC staff concludes that no ESA-protected species or critical habitat occur in the action 23 area. In Section 4.8, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed agency action would have no 24 effect on any ESA-protected species or critical habitat. FWS (2013) does not typically provide 25 its concurrence with no effect determinations by Federal agencies. Thus, the ESA does not 26 require further informal consultation or the initiation of formal consultation with the FWS for the 27 proposed SQN license renewal. Nonetheless, because this SEIS constitutes the NRCs 28 biological assessment, the NRC staff will submit a copy of this SEIS, upon its issuance, to the 29 FWS for review in accordance with 50 CFR 402.12(j).
30 Table C-1 lists the letters, e-mails, and other correspondence related to the NRCs ESA 31 obligations with respect to its review of the SQN license renewal application. This table will be 32 updated in the final SEIS, as applicable, to include correspondence transpiring between the 33 issuance of the draft and final SEIS.
C-2
Appendix C 1 Table C-1. ESA Section 7 Consultation Correspondence Date Sender and Description ADAMS Recipient Accession (a)
No.
March 20, 2013 M. Wong (NRC) Request for concurrence with list of Federally ML13079A186 to C. Dohner (FWS) listed species and habitats for the proposed SQN license renewal June 5, 2013 B. Grange (NRC) Request for update on the status of FWSs ML13177A193 to M. Jennings (FWS) review of the NRCs list of Federally listed species and habitats July 3, 2013 M. Jennings (FWS) Concurrence with NRCs list of Federally ML13184A228 to M. Wong (NRC) listed species and habitats July 15, 2013 B. Grange (NRC) Request for clarification on whether to include ML13197A395 to R. Sykes (FWS) white fringeless orchid in the NRCs analysis of effects to Federally listed species and habitats July 15, 2013 R. Sykes (FWS) Reply to request for clarification on whether to ML13197A395 to B. Grange (NRC) include white fringeless orchid in the NRCs analysis of effects to Federally listed species and habitats (a)
These documents can be accessed through the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at http://adams.nrc.gov/wba/.
2 C.2 Essential Fish Habitat Consultation 3 The NRC must comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 4 Act, as amended, (16 U.S.C. §1801-1884, herein referred to as Magnuson-Stevens Act) for 5 any actions authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or 6 undertaken that may adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH).
7 In Sections 3.8 and 4.8 of this SEIS, the NRC staff concludes that NMFS has not designated 8 EFH under the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the Chickamauga Reservoir, and that the proposed 9 SQN license renewal would have no effect on EFH. Thus, the Magnuson-Stevens Act does not 10 require the NRC to consult with NMFS for the proposed SQN license renewal.
11 C.3 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 Consultation 12 The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to consider the effects 13 of their undertakings on historic properties and consult with applicable state and Federal 14 agencies, tribal groups, and individuals and organizations with a demonstrated interest in the 15 undertaking before taking action. Historic properties are defined as resources that are eligible 16 for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The historic preservation review process 17 (Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended) is outlined in 18 regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) in 36 CFR Part 800.
19 In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC has elected to use the NEPA process to comply 20 with its obligations under Section 106 of the NHPA.
C-3
Appendix C 1 Table C-2 lists the chronology of consultations and consultation documents related to the NRC 2 Section 106 review. The NRC staff is required to consult with the noted agencies and 3 organizations in accordance with the statutes listed above.
4 Table C-2. NHPA Correspondence ADAMS Accession (a)
Date Sender and Recipient Description No.
M. Wong (NRC) to R. Nelson (ACHP) Request for scoping March 14, 2013 comments/notification of ML13058A315 Section 106 review M. Wong (NRC) to E.P. McIntyre, Jr., Request for scoping March 14, 2013 Tennessee Historical Commission comments/notification of ML13058A180 Section 106 review M. Wong (NRC) to B. John Baker, Request for scoping March 15, 2013 Cherokee Nation comments/notification of ML13058A243 Section 106 review M. Wong (NRC) to B. Anoatubby, The Request for scoping March 15, 2013 Chickasaw Nation comments/notification of ML13058A243 Section 106 review M. Wong (NRC) to T. Yargee, Request for scoping March 15, 2013 Alabama Quassarte Tribal Town comments/notification of ML13058A243 Section 106 review M. Wong (NRC) to G. Tiger, Request for scoping March 15, 2013 Muscogee (Creek) Nation comments/notification of ML13058A243 Section 106 review M. Wong (NRC) to O.C. Sylestine, Request for scoping March 15, 2013 Alabama-Coushatta Tribe of Texas comments/notification of ML13058A243 Section 106 review M. Wong (NRC) to G. Scott, Request for scoping March 15, 2013 Thlopthlocco Tribal Town comments/notification of ML13058A243 Section 106 review M. Wong (NRC) to G.J. Wallace, Request for scoping March 15, 2013 Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma comments/notification of ML13058A243 Section 106 review M. Wong (NRC) to T. Hobia, Kialegee Request for scoping March 15, 2013 Tribal Town comments/notification of ML13058A243 Section 106 review M. Wong (NRC) to M. Hicks, Eastern Request for scoping March 15, 2013 Band of the Cherokee Indians comments/notification of ML13058A243 Section 106 review M. Wong (NRC) to G. Blanchard, Request for scoping March 15, 2013 Absentee Shawnee Tribe of comments/notification of ML13058A243 Oklahoma Section 106 review M. Wong (NRC) to G.G. Wickliffe, Request for scoping March 15, 2013 United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee comments/notification of ML13058A243 Indians in Oklahoma Section 106 review M. Wong (NRC) to J. E. Billie, Request for scoping March 15, 2013 Seminole Tribe of Florida comments/notification of ML13058A243 Section 106 review C-4
Appendix C ADAMS Accession (a)
Date Sender and Recipient Description No.
M. Wong (NRC) to L. M. Harjo, Request for scoping March 15, 2013 Seminole Nation of Oklahoma comments/notification of ML13058A243 Section 106 review L. LaRue-Baker, United Keetoowah Response to request for March 25, 2013 band of Cherokee Indians in ML13084A357 scoping comments Oklahoma to E. Larson (NRC)
M. Wong (NRC) to the Eastern Request for scoping April 30, 2013 Tennessee Historical Society comments/notification of ML13112A141 Section 106 review M. Wong (NRC) to The Tennessee Request for scoping May 6, 2013 Historical Society comments/notification of ML13113A301 Section 106 review (a)
These documents can be accessed through the NRCs ADAMS at http://adams.nrc.gov/wba/.
1 C.4 References 2 50 CFR Part 402. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, Wildlife and Fisheries, Part 402, 3 Interagency cooperationEndangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
4 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq.
5 [FWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Consultations: Frequently Asked Questions.
6 Available at <http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/faq.html#8> (accessed 7 20 June 2014).
8 [FWS and NMFS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998.
9 Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and 10 Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. March 1998. 315 p.
11 Available at <http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/esa_section7_handbook.pdf>
12 (accessed 8 July 2013).
13 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, as amended.
14 16 U.S.C. §1801-1884.
15 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended. 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.
C-5