ML20217J242

NRR Office Ltr 906,rev 2, Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments & Considering Environmental Issues

ML20217J242
Person / Time
Issue date:	09/21/1999
From:	Jolly R NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
NUDOCS 9910250053
Download: ML20217J242 (42)

Text

-

AdOct% by 9ho/Q(y OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION 1

Office Letter Transmittal TO: All NRR Employees

SUBJECT:

NRR OFFICE LETTER NO. 906, REVISION .2, " PROCEDURAL GUIDANCE FOR PREPARING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS AND CONSIDERING ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES" l

PURPOSE: Revised Office Letter No. 906 establishes procedures and provides guidance pertaining to the preparation of environmental assessments and the consideration of environmentalissues for licensing actions. It supersedes Office Letter 906, Revision 1, dated September 27,1996.

Substantive revisions and editions are indicated in bold.

DIVISION OF ORIGIN:

f Division of Regulatory improvement Programs CONTACT: Robert S. Jolly,415-1079 DATE APPROVED: September 21,1999 AVAILABILITY: Debra McCain,415-1219 i

)

&S \

9910250053 990921 PDR ORC NRRA PDR C::053

p 1

L NRR OFFICE LETTER NO. 906, REVISION 2 i

PROCEDURAL GUIDANCE FOR PREPARING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS AND CONSIDERING l ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES OBJECTIVES This office letter is intended to (1) define the responsibilities of the Generic issues, Environmental, Financial and Rulemaking Branch (RGEB) for ensuring that NRR is consistent in its implementation of NRC and other Federal envircnmental regulations, (2) define NRR staff responsibilities, and (3) provide guidance to NRR staff on the procedural requirements for demonstrating compliance with environmental statutes and regulations covering environmental issues for docketed facilities.

The office letter contains guidance for preparing environmental assessments (EAs) and for considering the environmental issues associated with the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), the National Historical Preservation

- Act (NPHA), as amended, and the Executive Order related to environmental justice. These i issues entail, in part, determining an action's impact on protected coastal zones, protected I threatened and endangered species, archaeological and historical sites, and considering the degree to which an action has disparate impacts on minority populations and low-income populations. It should be noted that an environmentalimpact statement (EIS) addresses the same issues as an EA, but in a more detailed format. This office letter does not address the preparation of an EIS; an EIS will be prepared with technical support from RGEB staff. This office letter supersedes previous guidance on these subjects.

RESf_QNSIBILITIES AND AUTHORITIES I

RGEB l l

RGEB is responsible for providing implementation guidance and technical support to the NRR '

staff for the resolution of environmental issues for docketed' facilities. RGEB is also responsible for coordinating environmental issues with other NRC offices, for ensuring NRR meets its obligations under all Federal environmental regulations and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and for consistently and properly implementing the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51, " Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions," for docketea facilities.

All NRR Emolovees Individual NRR staff members are responsible for implementing the procedural requirements of

. this office letter; the staff should consult with RGEB when reviewing environmentalissues.

'. f 2

BASIC REQUIREMENTS

'In addition to NRC's regulatory responsibilities embodied in the traditional health and safety requirements of the Atomic Energy Act, NRC also has responsibilities that derive from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and from other environmental regulations (such as

' the ESA, the NHPA, and the CZMA) The NRR staff should consider the environmental issues

' when performing license amendment activities including, but not limited to:

'(1) increasing the authorized power level of commercial power reactors beyond the power rating stated in the original Environmental Impact Statement, (2) changing the license expiration date to recapture time between the construction permit and actual operation (construction recapture), j (3) performing decommissioning activities under 10 CFR Part 50, and

-(4) revising Appendix B of a licensee's operating license (environmental protection

' plan),

1 Additionally, the staff should consider _the environmental issues when processing license I l

renewal applications under 10 CFR Part 54 and requests for exemptions from NRC regulations,  !

and when conducting rulemaking. The staff need not consider environmental issues when '

performing licensing and regulatory activities eligible for categorical exclusions under 10 CFR 61.22.

The NRR staff is encouraged to seek assistance from' RGEB early in dealing with environmental I issues that are unique, particularly difficult, or unfamiliar. The NRR staff may request formal guidance in writing EAs or EISs from RGEB. When seeking concurrence, assistance, or safety evaluation input, the NRR staff should provide the RGEB staff a Technical Assignment Control

- (TAC) number because environmental reviews are fee recoverable under 10 CFR Part 170.

RGEB Resoonsibilities L

(1) Review and concur on plant-specific and generic EAs prepared by the NRR staff for the activities listed above. RGEB will maintain typical treatments of environmental issues and p.mvide input to standard wording used in addressing

. similar environmentalissues.

(2) ~ Review and provide guidance and support to the NRR staff in the preparation of all EISs (draft, final,' and supplements) for docketed facilities.

(3) Participate in environmental rulemaking activities. RGEB will review proposed environmental legislation, statutes, regulations, and guidance for potential impact on NRR and will participate in Federal Govemment-wide meetings. RGEB will provide guidance to the NRR staff regarding the implementation of other applicable Federal statutes.

l m

3 (4) Review new and 3 merging environmenta' issues and provide support to the NRR staff in resolving environmental issues.

s n

.(5) Review environmental documents submitted by other Federal and State agencies.

(6)' Review recovery plans for endangered species and prepare or direct the

. preparation of biological assessments (bas) as required by the ESA.

'(7) Coordinate environmental issues with other NRC offices and Federal cnd State agencies. ,

(8) _ Maintain and update this office letter.

General Staff Reauirements for EAs

As previously discussed under " Basic Requirements," EAs must be written for certain licensing and rulemaking activities. Although most environmental reviews perfomied by NRC are EAs, it

' is important to understand the distinction between an EA and an EIS, and when an EA and an EIS is used.

~ NEPA requires that'a detailed statement of the environmentalimpact of the proposed action and attematives (an EIS) be prepared for " major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of

'the human environment." The process used to determine whether an action will significantly affect (or impact) the environment is an EA. If the review documented in an EA shows that the proposed action will not have a significant impact on the environment, a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) is made in the conclusion of the EA and no EIS need be prepared. If, on the other hand, the environmental review reveals that the proposed action will, or has the potential to, significantly affect the environment, the EA must conclude that a more detailed review of the

_environmental effects (i.e., an EIS) should be prepared. In general, an EIS contains much more detail about the specific environmental impacts of the proposed action and altematives, and

= requires extensive public participation, public comment, and coordination with other agencies.

Normally, project managers (PMs) prepare EAs and are responsible for coordinating the preparation of EISs.

Upon receipt of a proposed action, the PM should determine whether an environmental review is needed and, if it is needed,'the type of review that should be prepared. As mentioned previously in this guidance,' Section 51.22 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Reaulations (10 CFR 51.22) identifies categories of actions that are excluded from environmental reviews because it has been determined that certain categories do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, if the PM determines that the proposed action is *

' outside one of the excluded categories, the PM should prepare the EA in accordance with the

' requirements in 10 CFR 51.30, unless significant environmental impacts may occur as a result of the action. If significant environmentalimpacts may occur, the PM should contact RGEB and an EIS will be prepared.'. Section 51.30 requires that an EA (1) identify the proposed action,

4 (2) briefly discuss the need for the proposed action, (3) briefly discuss the attemative courses of action if the proposed action involves ari unresolved conflict concerning alternative uses of resources, (4) describe the environmental impacts of the proposed action and any alternative courses of action noted in item (3), and (5) list agencies and persons consulted and identify sources used. EAs should not address the safety details of the review, only the environmental impacts of the proposed action. An EA should include a FONSIif the EA supports a conclusion that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of '

the human environment. If such a finding cannot be made, an EIS will have to be prepared.

The preparation of the EIS thould be coordinated with RGEB. Attachment 1 is a flow chart outlining the process. Attachment 2 contains detailed guidance on each step in the preparation of an EA. Attachment 3 contains a sample (boilerplate) of the appropriate format and content of an EA.

Note: The sample is intended to be used as guidance and is not a substitute for an objective consideration of the impacts and conclusions. PMs must independently satisfy themselves that any boilerplate statements used are correctly applied to the specific action being reviewed.

General Reauirements for Rulemakina Activities When an EA is written in support of rulemaking activities, the initiating office implements additional procedures. Detailed guidance is provided in the NRC Regulations Handbook, NUREG/BR-0053.

In general, after the Federal Reaister notice (FRN) for the proposed rule is signed by the Commission Secretary or the Executive Director for Operations (EDO), and before the FRN is published, a generic cover letter with a copy of the draft EA and the FRN should be sent to the State Liaison Officer requesting the State's comments. As with an EA for a licensing action, the consultation must be documented in a brief summary in the EA, and must address the comments and staff response. A sample letter is included in NUREG/BR-0053.

General Reauirements for Environmental Justice in February 1994, the President issued an Executive Order mandating that Federal agencies make " environmental justice" part of each agency's mission by addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of Federal programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and on low-income populations. The Council on Environmental Quality developed guidelines on how to integrate environmental justice into the NEPA process. The guidelines are contained in the document " Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act," December 10,1997. NRR has developed a corresponding procedure (Attachment 4) for incorporating environmental justice into the licensing process.

g 1

1 5 l l

Environmentaljustice reviews will be performed for all actions requiring preparation of an EIS or l a supplement to an EIS. An environmental justice review is not usually required for an EA in

'which a FONSI is made. In most cases, when a FONSI is reached, the staff can conclude that there are no disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental l

' effects associated with the proposed action. However, special circumstances may {

warrant an environmental justice review for an EA in which a FONSI is made. These l cases may include regulatory actions that involve a significant site modification with an )

identifiable impact on the environment or that have substantial public interest. _in these circumstances, the staff will inform NRR senior management and a decision will be made on a case-by case basis as to whether the circumstances warrant an environmental justice review for an EA.

Coastal Zone Manaaement Act 4

The CZMA was promulgated to encourage and assist States and territories in developing management programs that preserve, protect, develop, and, where possible, restore the resources of the coastal zone. A " coastal zone" is generally described as the coastal waters and the adjacent shore lands strongly influenced by each other. This includes islands, transitional and intertidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, beaches, and Great

. Lakes waters. Activities of Federal agencies that are reasonably likely to affect coasta! zones

' shall be consistent with the approved coastal management program (CMP) of the State or territory. The CZMA provisions apply to all Federal licenses and actions requiring Federal

approval (new plant licenses, license renewals, materials licenses, and major amendments to 4 existing licenses) that affect the coastal zone in a State or territory with a Federally approved

.. CMP. Attachment 5 lists those States and territories with Federally approved CMPs.

+

' PMs should determine whether the State or territory has an approved CMP and whether their licensee is within the boundary of the CMP. If the plant is located within the CMP boundary, the PM should become familiar with the requirements of the CMP. Within the CMP, prechtermined activities are listed that may affect the coastal zone. When the PM determines that a proposed licensing activity may affect coastal uses or resources, the PM should inform the licensee of the

' need to contact the govemment of the State or tenitory and to comply with the provisions of the

.CZMA.~ The licensee should certify its compliance to the State or territory. Attachment 6 is a draft model certification for license amendment applicants.

In notifying the licensee of the need to communicate with the State or territorial govemment, the PM'should ascertain whether the proposed activity'is listed in the CMP. If the activity has been listed in the CMP, the PM has an obligation to withhold approval of the application until the govemment of the State or territory has concurred. . If the applicant seeks a license, permit, or license amendment for an activity affecting the coastal zone and that activity is not listed in the

^

CMP, the State or territory has the responsibility of informing the NRC and the applicant (within 30 02ys after the CMP coordinator has been notified) that the activity requires review by the State or territorial govemment.~.Otherwise, the State or territory waives the right to review the unlisted activity. In either case, once the State or territory begins its review, it has 6 months to l determine whether such activity is consistent with the CMP. If the State or territory

. I

6 concurs, NRC may issue approval of the application. If the State or territory objects to a consistency certification for a listed activity, NRC may not approve the activity unless the applicant appeals the objection to the Secretary of Commerce and the Secretary overrides the objection. Attachment 7 is a flow chart of CZMA activities.

Endanaered Soecies Act The ESA was promulgated to ensure protection of endangered or threatened species and critical habitats. The ESA imposes two basic requirements on Federal agencies. First, the ESA requires each Federal agency to ensure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by an agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species, or result in the destruction or impairment of any critical habitat for such species. " Action" has been interpreted broadly and comprises licensing, rulemaking, and lesser regulatory actions that could jeopardize an endangered species. A Federal agency should act, if possible (where it has the legal authority), to prevent endangered species or their habitats from being threatened or destroyed.

Second, the ESA requires that Federal agencies fulfill the requirements of the act in consultation with, and with the assistance of, the Secretary of the Interior (for freshwater and terrestrial species through the Fish and Wildlife Service) or the Secretary of Commerce (for oceanic and coastal matters through the National Marine Fisheries Service); hereafter both are referred to as "the Service." If the Federal agency fails to consult with the Service, and the action results in the "taking" (harassment, harm, pursuit, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capture, collention, or attempt to engage in such activities) of an endangered species or the impairment or destruction of a critical habitat, the Federal agency is in clear violation of the ESA. Five consultation processes can be used and are discussed briefly below.

Early Consultation i

i The applicant (licensee) can request that the Federal agency enter into early consultation with

. the Service. This may be done if the applicant believes one or more listed species or critical

)

habitats may be affected by the proposed action. The agency initiates early consultation in I writing. The process followed is the same as the one discussed under " Formal Consultation";

however, a preliminary biological opinion (BO) is issued. A preliminary BO does not constitute the authority to "take" listed species.-

Informal Consultation Informal consultation, an optional process of discussions between the Service and the Federal agdncy preceding formal consultation, determines whether formal consultation or a conference is required.

i

_______._.)

r .

7 Conference -

This process involves informal discussions between a Federal agency and the Service regarding the impact of an action on proposed species or proposed critical habitat and recommendations to minimize or avoid harm.

' Biological Assessment

-A biological assessment (BA) is prepared when a major activity takes place that may affect listed species or critical habitats. The Federal agency requests a list from the Service of endangered or threatened species and critical habitats or sends the Service a list of species and habitats that are being reviewed in the BA. Wdhin 30 days of the request, the Service provides an initial response (provides a list or concurs on the list that was prepared by the Federal agency). If no species or critical habitats are affected, no further action is required. If only proposed species or habitats (not yet listed as an endangered or threatened species or critical habitat) are involved, the Federal agency must confer with the Service, but a BA is not required to be submitted to the Service if listed species or critical habitats are involved, the Federal agency must begin the BA within 90 days of the initial service response. (Although the NRC

- may designate the writing of the BA to the licensee, all correspondence with the Service should be transmitted by the NRC.) The BA may include the findings of onsite inspections, opinions of recognized experts, results of an information review, an analysis of the proposed actions, and attematives. The BA must be submitted to the Service within 180 days of the Service's initial response. The Service must respond to the BA withire 30 days. If there are no listed species involved and the Service concurs, no formal consultation ic required. If the BA concludes that the action is not likely to jeopardize the listed species or any critical habitat and the Service concurs, no conference ic required. If the BA concludes that the action affects listed species or critical habitat, the Federal agncy may initially request an informal consultation to de* ermine whether the projeret can be modified so that the species or critical habitats are not auversely affected. Otherwise, formal consultation is required.

Formal Consultation Formal consultation is a process between the Service and the Federal agency that takes place after the BA has been prepared determining that the action affects listed species or critical habitats. Attachment 8 is a flow chart illustrating the formal ESA consultation process.

The Federal agency sends a written request for consultation to the Service. The written request for consultation must be accompaniad by a BA containing a description of the action, a description of the area, a description of the listed species, the effects of the action, an analysis of the cumulative effects, and a review of reports and other information. Within 90 days, the Service issues a BO.' The BO contains a summary of the action, the effects, an opinion on

' whether the species is in jeopardy as a result of the action, attematives, incidental "take" provisions, and any proposed conservation measures. '

After the consultation is complete, the Federal agency must determine whether it has taken all i necessary actions. Although the Federal agency is not legally bound to comply with Service opinions and can adopt measures that differ from the recommendations, the courts give substantial weight to Service opinions. The NRC then provides the BO, including the

8 incidental "take" provisions and conservation measures, to the applicant or licensee fcr implementation.

The ESA also provides for reinitiation of consultation if the original assumptions of the BA l change; and there is a provision for a citizen suit to challenge a Federal agency's action.

National Historical Preservation Act The NHPA was promulgated in 1966 and amended in 1992 to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect significant historic and archaeological resources.

Section 106 of the NHPA directs Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings I on historic properties. The Act allows tha Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (the Council) an opportunity to review and comment on any Federal agency action that might harm historic property. Attachment 9 is a flow chart illustrating the Section 106 process.

" Undertakings" denotes a broad range of Federal activities, induding the issuance of NRC licenses, license amendments, and permits. " Historic property"is any property listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Reoister of Historic Places (Register).

As the first step in the Section 106 process, the agency identifies the historic property that the 4

undertaking may affect. The Federal agency should review information and consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). In areas of Indian tribal land, tribal agencies may act as the SHPO and are referred to as the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO). If properties are identified and may be eligible for entry in the Register but have not yet been listed in it, the agency should evaluate the site against criteria published by the National l Park Service. The evaluation is carried out in consultation with the SHPORHPO, and the I agency may seek formal determinations. If the property has already been listed in the Register, no further evaluation is necessary.

The agency should work with the SHPO4HPO to assess the effect of the undertaking on the (

cite that contains a historic property. Three determinations may be made: no effect, no adverse i effect, and adverse effect. If a determination of no effect or no adverse effect is concluded, the agency must provide documentation to the SHPOITPHO. The SHPORHPO has 30 days to object to the documentation; otherwise the undertaking is considered '

acceptable. If an adverse effect determination is made, the agency should consult with the SHPORHPO, the public, and, if necessary, the Council. Consultation regarding the resolution of the adverse effects should result in a memorandum of agreement (MOA) outlining measures agreed upon by the agency to reduce, avoid, or mitigate the advctse effect.

The NHPA statute also provides provisions for review of historic properties in conjunction with a NEPA review and emergency situations. A sample MOA can be found in the Council's FRN, dated May 18,1999, titled " Recommended Approach for Consultation on Recovery of Significant Information From Archaeological Sites."

4 9

EFFECTIVE DATE This office letter is effective immediately and applicable to any newly initiated draft environmental impact statement or environmental assessment.

Attachments:

1. Environmental Assessment Flow Chart

2. Environmental Assessment Preparation Guidance

3. Format and Content of Environmental Assessment

4. Environmental Justice Procedure

5. List of States with Federally Approved Coastal Management Programs 6; Draft Model Certification l

7. Coastal Zone Management Act Flow Chart {

8. Endangered Species Act Consultation Flow Chart {

9. Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Flow Chart i' cc w/ attachments: )

W. Travers, EDO l C. Paperiello, DEDR F. Miraglia, DEDE P. Norry, DEDM H. Miller, RI j L. Reyes, Ril '

J. Dyer, Rill E. Merschoff, RIV

- SECY ,

OGC (5)

PUBLIC' S. Reiter, CIO (Acting)

J. Funches, CFO M. Malloy l

l

"N 7

s i

ATTACHMENT 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FLOW CHART l

l i

l

1 1 _

T N

E M

H C

A L T AO TN S f

E T

A Ag i

N E F '

T _

MO '

E Z NS

^

" O T

Sg Y OTN" N O -

L RCO' T AV AI I

P C'T' NH NN M AEI A^ E OIT C 4 TW I

R' U AD -

" O CE _

S FE N I

T CO I

E S A I

/R/ E EE V C SOT I

RI N URC R Atut JPA E

S OC D N SI I E L _

REF I _

S Y S

N NETRN _

OLOO O O " CATC _

N F

N O N O

I T FI L C OTC A T

I S

A E V A N N ,

E D

E h T D I

E M

N7 O -

S C S OT F .

O E RCA O P JO I V

N P N

O BP Ei M R OO R T P N P A S- C?T I

E E FC I

NA TA Y

GP SI M

" AE { _

T N I

SI O S T -

E S NH Y OIT B CT RC

+ TW I

AD CE I

UL OF FE N I

SN TCO I

EO I

SOT R

O S E E C URC JPA T )

S V R _

S S E I E E Y R T UT .

V V E A OC D N SI _

RTD G NIT I

L REF I

S SI TOAN f

E AE i S

NETRN DNRO N DICR N OLOO -

S E PO U I

N TOTC I

L AE T CATC _

OLRCNOL CAPA(NA I

p .

,1 ATTACHMENT 2 (

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT PREPARATION GUIDANCE l

1 f

l l

+

P l

I DETAILED GUIDANCE FOR PRE 4IllNG ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS l Identification of the Proposed Action This section should briefly describe the action proposed and reference the pertinent licensee application.

The Need for the Proposed Action

]

Section 51.30(a)(1)(i) of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Reaulations requires that an environmental assessment (EA) shall contain a brief discussion of the need for the proposed action. When writing this portion of the EA, the person preparing the EA should discuss the I applicant's motivation for submitting the application to the NRC. For example, does the requested exemption or amendment provide some benefit to the applicant if granted? How would the applicant be affected if the application was not approved?

Environmental Impacts '

The environmental impacts of the proposed action must be evaluated by the Commission in accordance with 10 CFR 51.30(a)(1)(lii). The impacts section should I certify that the proposed action will not significantly increase the probability of i accidents or entall an undertaking involving historic sites. This section should also include an evaluation of radiological and non-radiological impacts. l i

Alternatives The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) contains two separate requirements related to l the consideration of alternatives. The first requires the consideration of alternatives in the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). The second requires the consideration of alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal that involves i unresolved conflicts conceming alternative uses of available resources. Thus, the statute requires attematives to be considered only if an EIS is prepared or if an agency action exists that involves unresolved conflicting uses of resources. The significance of the environmental impact of the action cannot be used to determine whether an agency has to consider altematives.

Sections 51.30(a)(1)(ii) and (iii) require that an EA include attematives to the proposed action and the environmentalimpact of the attematives. NEPA requires NRC to consider attematives in the preparation of all EAs whenever the'following two conditions are present: (1) there is some identifiable environmental impact from the proposed action and (2) the objective of the proposed action can be achieved in one of two or more ways that will have differing impacts on the envi:unment (unresolved conflict of available resources). The fact that the EA involves a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) does not automatically exempt the person preparing the EA from considering alternatives. As long as there is some identifiable impact on the Attachment 2

r i

I cnvironment from the proposed action, the person preparing the EA should consider alternatives. For those actions involving a very small impact, it is reasonable to consider a very j limited range ~of alternatives, in fact, in several decisions, the courts have stressed that the j range of attematives an agency must consider in an EA decreases as the environmental impact of the proposed action becomes less and less substantial. However, no court Ns held that an agency is excused from considering attematives if the agency has made a FON'31, and, in fact, considering attematives is independent of the question of environmental impact.

Nonsignificant impact does not equal no impact, so if an even less harmful altemative is

' feasible, it ought to be considered. if the environmental impact of a proposed action is zero, there is no need to consider altematives because there is no use of natural resources associated with the action. In those cases involving no environmentalimpact at all, it is reasonable to avoid a discussion of a'tematives, or at least limit the discussion of attematives to consideration of the no-action attemative. If the "no-action" attemative is the only attemative examined, the altematives section may contain wording similar to the following:

As an attemative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., this is the "no-action alterna 1ve"). Denial of the application would result in no change in current en, ronmentalimpacts. The environmentalimpacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.

3 Conflicts Concomina Altemative Use of Resources In accordance with Section 102(2)(E) of NEPA, agencies must consider attemative courses of action if the proposed action involves an unresolved conflict on how available resources will be used under the proposed action. This consideration will take place when the objective of the proposed action can be achieved in one of two or more ways that will have differing impacts on the environment even if a FONSI has been made. OGC has provided the following guidance to the staff. Almost all EAs prepared by NRC are expected to involve an " unresolved resource conflict," as this terrn has been interpreted by the courts.

Reauirements for Consultation With States and Other Govemment Acencies Section 51.30(a)(2) requires the EA to list agencies and persons consulted and to identify the sources used. The person preparing the EA must consult with the affected State before the EA is issued and must solicit comments on the environmental impact and any other comments the State may have. Additionally, the person preparing the EA is responsible for ensuring that other appropriate agencies are contacted if an action may involve some impact on the natural or physical environment. The consultation must be documented in a brief summary in the EA and should contain (1) the name of the agency or person contacted (consulted with), (2) the date and purpose of the consultation, (3) a brief summary of the views or comments expressed and the staff's resolution, and (4) references to publicly available documents containing additional information, as applicable.

Attachment 2

4 The person preparing the EA should briefly describe why the consultation was initiated. For

- example, if the National Marine Fisheries Service was contacted on July 25,1995, to discuss a specific issue involving short-nosed sturgeon, the summary could make the following statement:

The National Marine Fisheries Service was contacted on July 25,1995, to discuss the evaluation of the ability of short-nosed sturgeon to avoid capture after the proposed modification of the river water intake.

If the consultation was made to meet strictly a programmatic requirement and not a specific issue, the consultation with the State could be summarized as follows:

In accordance with its stated policy, on [ insert date), the staff consulted with the 1

[ insert name of State] State official, [ insert name of official] of the [ insert name of agency], regarding the environmentalimpact of the proposed action. The State

)

official had [ choose one - comments or no comments). j If comments are received from the State or agency, the comments should be summarized in the EA. Minor comments could be characterized as " general agreement" or "no objection" by the State or agency. More extensive comments require the person preparing the EA to summarize the details of the issues and the resolution of the comments in the EA or to place them in a separate document and reference them in the EA. Resolution of the comments should be placed in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) and the local PDR to ensure public access.

Before issuing the EA for an exemption to the regulations, the person preparing the EA should l also contact the State govemment to solicit comments on the environmental impact of the j proposed action. Although notifying the State is not required by.10 CFR 50.91, it is required by the NEPA. This requirement may be met by sending a copy of the incoming exemption request to the State. If the State has a comment, the person preparing the EA should resolve and document the comments in the EA, as previously discussed.

)

i 1

I l

l Attachment 2 l

/

i ATTACHMENT 3 FORMAT AND CONTENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

E APPROPRIATE FORMAT AND CONTENT OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (Addressee)

SUBJECT:

Plant Name - (TAC NOs. MOOOOO)

Dear  :

Enclosed is a copy of the Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact related to your application for [ amendment / exemption] dated

, as supplemented on . The proposed [ amendment / exemption]

would .

The assessment is being forwarded to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.

Sincerely, ,

I

, Project Manager or Project Director l Project Directorate Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation '

)

Docket No.

Enclosure:

Environmental Assessment i cc w/ encl: See next page l

1

7590-01 i

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (LICENSEE)

(DOCKET NO.)

(PLANT NAME)

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT I

I I

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an {

l

[ amendment to/ exemption from 10 CFR Part 50._ for] Facility Operating License No. . j issued to [i_nsert name of licensee 1, (the licensee), for operation of the Ifacility naingL, .

I located in .

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of the Proposed Action: l The proposed action would Ibriefiv describe what amendment / exemption would dol The proposed act. ion is in accordance with the licensee's application for

[ amendment / exemption] dated . as supplemented by letter dated .

The Need for the Proposed Action:

The proposed action.[ describe why amendment /exemDtion IS neededl

Environmentalimpacts of *he Proposed Action:

~ The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that_[ describe gpvironmental impacts 1 The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of '

accidents, no changes are being made in the types of any effluents that may be released off site, and there is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure.

Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action does not involve any historic sites. [ PREPARER PLEASE VERIFY THAT NO HISTORIC SITES ARE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED ACTION.] It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Attematives to the Proposed Action:

As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the "no-action" alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. [ PREPARER, PLEASE NOTE: ANY OTHER

. ALTERNATIVES THAT ARE CONSIDERED TO BE REASONABLE'SHOULD BE EVALUATED AND DISCUSSED HERE.] The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.

1 4

U <

l Alternative'Use of Resources:

This action does not involve the use of any resources not previously considered in the Final

' Environmental Statement for the [ insert name of facility].

Aaencies and Persons' Consulted:

In accordance with its stated policy, on [ insert date) the staff consulted with the [ insert name of State) State official, [ insert name of official) of the [ insert name of agency), regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action, The State official had no comments.

FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed -

l action will not have a'significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action.

For further details with respect t'o the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated . as supplemented by letter dated . which are available for public

. inspection at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washiregton, DC, and at the local public document room located at the (insert LPDR address].-

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this day of .

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, Director Project Directorate Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation l

l l

I

P 4

l l

ATTACHMENT 4 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE PROCEDURE 1

l 1

i i

c l

i li c

I

)

NRR PROCEDURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE REVIEWS 1

-BACKGROUND This procedure provides guidance to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) staff on conducting environmental justice (EJ) reviews for proposed actions as part of NRC's -

compliance.with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This guidance does not create any new substantive or procedural NEPA-related requirements. The guidance is merely intended to improve intemal NRR functions by helping to ensure that NRC is fully discharging its existing NEPA responsibilities. Executive Order 12898, " Federal Actions to Address

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-income Populations," 59 FR 7629 (1994), directs Federal agencies in the Executive Branch to consider environmental justice so that their programs and activities will not have "... disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects..." . The NRC, although an independent agency, indicated its j willingness to comply with the Executive Order.

, The Council on Environmental Quality (the Council) finalized guidelines for Federal agencies on

- how to integrate EJ into the NEPA process. The guidelines are contained in Council's ,

' December 10,1997, document, " Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National '

Environmental Policy Act." The Council's guidance is not binding on NRC activities; however, much of the Council's guidance has been incorporated in this procedure.

SCOPE Environmental justice reviews will be performed for all regulatory actions, including licensing

- actions and rulemaking activities, requiring preparation of an environmentalimpact statement

. (EIS), a supplement to an EIS, or a generic EIS (GEIS). An EIS is required for those regulatory actions identified in 10 CFR 51.20 or when there is a sufficient impact on the physical or natural environment to be "significant" within the meaning of NEPA. Agency consideration of impacts on minority or low-income populations may lead to the identification of disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects that are significant and that otherwise would be overlooked.

1 For environmental assessments (EAs) with a Finding of No Significant impact (FONSI)

. determination, the staff concludes, as part of its analysis, that there will be no significant offsite impacts fron t the action. - If no significant offsite impacts will occur, no member of the public will

be substantially affected. Therefore, in most cases, there can be no disproportionately high and adverse effects of impacts'on any member of the public including minority or low-income populations. In these instances, no environmental justice review will be performed. However,

- under special circumstances, environmental justice reviews may be needed for actions in which

. an EA/FONSI is. prepared if there is the potential that an analysis of environmental justice lasues may identify significant environmental impacts that would be otherwise not identified. In these cases, the staff willinform NRR senior management and a decision will be made on a

. case-by-case basis whether the circumstances warrant an environmental justice review for an EA.

Attachment 4

, 2.

i

'Under NEPA, the identification of a disproportionately high and adverse human health or I

- environmental effect on a minority or low-income population does not preclude a proposed n  ; agency action from going forward, nor does it necessarily compel a conclusion that a proposed action is environmentally unsatisfactory. Rather, the identification of such an effect should heighten agency attention to alternatives (including alternative sites), mitigation strategies, monitoring needs, and preferences expressed by the affected community or population.

A graduated evaluation of impacts may be performed, if appropriate, if the nature of the impact has an identifiable variation within the area or with distance from the source (for example, l radiation exposure).'  !

DOCUMENTATION Each EIS, EIS supplement, or GELS shall contain a section titled, " Environmental Justice,"

~ which will either contain the complete environmentaljustice review or a reference to another document containing the review, if a reference to another document is used, a summary of the review and its conclusions should be included in the EIS section. An EA will only have an environmental justice section in the rare and unusual situation in which a review was performed.

4-GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL' JUSTICE Environmental justice issues encompass the usual broad range of impacts normally covered by 4

NEPA. The staff should be sensitive to the fact that environmental justice issues may arise at any step of the NEPA process.

The staff should consider the composition of the affected area to determine whether minority or

. low income populations are present in the area and affected by the proposed action. If there are significant impacts from the proposed action, the staff needs to determine whether there may be disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority

-or low-income populations..

-- As with all EIS reviews, the staff should consider relevant public health data and industry data

concoming the potential for multiple or cumulative exposure to human health or environmental hazards in the affected population and historical patterns of exposure to environmental hazards, to the extent such information is reasonably available. The staff should consider multiple or cumulative' effects, where appropriate, sven if certain effects are not within the control or subject to the discretion of the agency p/oposing the action. This means that cumulative impacts from other facilities in the same area not licensed by the NRC should be included in the review. . Impacts from other facilities licensed by the NRC should be considered to the extent

! possible.-

The staff should recognize the interrelated cultural, social,~ occupational, historical, or economic factors that may amplify the natural and physical environmental effects of the proposed agency action.- These factors should include the physical sensitivity of the community or population to l' ,

l Attachment 4 w.

3

' particular impacts; the effect of any disruption on the community structure associated with the proposed action; and the nature and degree of impact on the physical and social structure of the' community.

The staff should develop effective public participation strategies. The staff should acknowledge

' and seek to overcome linguistic, cultural, institutional, geographic, and other barriers to meaningful participation and should incorporate active outreach to affected groups.

The staff should strive for meaningful community representation in the process. The staff

. should be aware of the diverse constituencies within any community and should endeavor to have complete representation of the community as a whole. The staff should be aware that community participation must occur as early as possible if it is to be meaningful.

The staff should seek tribal representation in the process in a manner that is consistent with government-to-government relations.

The review should focus on the action being taken. If the action is, for example, a license amendment, only the activities covered by the amendment, and not the overall impact from the issuance of the originallicense, should be reviewed. This applies even if an EJ review was not 4 performed for the original action.

)

1 PROCEDURES FOR LICENSING ACTIONS 1 I

1 The following guidance should be used when performing an environmental justice review. This {

procedure may not address all situations that may occur. Project managers should consult with the Generic issues, Environmental, Financial and Rulemaking Branch (RGEB) whenever an -

environmental justice review is undertaken.

.1. Determine whether the regulatory action will be supported by an EIS or by an EA.

When the regulatory action requires the preparation of an EIS or a supplement to an EIS, an EJ review must be prepared using the process discussed in paragraphs 2 through 9 below. When the regulatory action involves the siting of new facilities or requires the evaluation of alternative sites, environmental justice information must be developed for each site.

Under most circumstances, no environmental justice review should be conducted where l an EA is prepared. If it is determined that a particular action will have no significant environmental impact, then there is no need to consider whether the action will have disproportionately high and adverse impacts on certain populations. However, in special cases, the reviewer may recommend to management that staff conduct an environmental justice analysis in preparing an EA. Such determination will be made on a case-by-case basis and only where there is an obvious potential that the consideration

1. f specific demographic information at the site may identify significant impacts that would not otherwise be considered.. In the rare situation that an environmental justice analysis is performed for an EA, the process outlined in paragraphs 2 through 9 should be followed.

Attachment 4 L'

4

2. During the public scoping process for the EIS, include environmental justice as a discussion topic along with other topics normally addrassed in the EIS scoping process.

- Solicit input from populations potentially affected by the action.

3. Using the input received from the public scoping process and the evaluation of environmental impacts for the EIS, determine the location of all adverse human health or environmentalimpacts that are known to be significant or perceived as significant by groups and/or individuals (typically up to 80 kilometers or 50 miles). The locations that are impacted by the proposed action are called environmental impact sites or affected -

areas. More than one environmental impact site may exist if multiple impacts can occur from the proposed action. The size of the environmental impact site or affected area will vary according to the nature of the impacts and should be consistent with the areas used to review environmentalimpacts in the EIS. See Figure 1 for examples.  !

4. Determine the geographic area to be used for the comparative analysis in determining whether a minority or low-income population exists. The area used for the comparative analysis is a larger area that encompasses all of the environmentalimpact sites (and is called the geographic area). See Figures 1 and 2 for examples.

When a regulatory action is being considered that involves altemative site locations, in addition to determining the individual geog, phic area for each site as defined above, determine an overall geographic area that encompasses all of the alternative site geographic areas. See Figure 2 for an example.

' . If the environmental impact sites overlap several States, then the geographic area will encompass parts of each State. The geographic area does not have to follow established boundaries such as county or State lines.

5. Determine minority and low-income composition in the geographic area:

- Determine the percentage of the total population within the geographic area for i

each minority and low-income category.

l The staff may use the most recent demographic data available from the Bureau of the Census (the Bureau) to identify the composition of the potential geographic area. Geographic distribution by race, ethnicity, and income, as well as delineation of tribal lands and resources, should be examined. Census data are available in published formats, and on CD-ROM available through the Bureau. These data are also available from a number of local, college, and university libraries, and the World Wide Web. Information may also be found through demographic information and studies, such as the Landview system, L

which is used by the Bureau to assist in utilizing data from a geographic information system.

Minority is defined as: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific

' islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic.

Attachment 4

5 Low-inco,me households should be identified using the annual statistical poverty thresholds from the Bureau.

6.

For each environmentalimpact site, detnrmine the percentage of the minority population within the environmental impact site for each minoity category. Likewise, determine the percentage of the households within the environmentalimpact site that are below the povertylevel(low-income). The selection of the appropriate unit of geographic analysis may likely be a census block group or a goveming body's jurisdiction, a neighborhood, census tract or similar unit.

If no minorities or low-income households are identified for any environmental impact site, document the conclusion. The environmentaljustice review is comp'ete.

7. An environmental justice review must be performed if the following exists:

A minority population exists if (1) the minority population of the environmental impact site exceeds 50 percent or (2) the minority population percentage of the environmental impact site is significantly greater (typically at least 20%) than the minority population percentage in the geographic area chosen for the comparative analysis.

A low-income population is considered to be present if the percentage of households below the poverty level in an environmental impact site is significantly greater (typically at least 20%) than the low-income population percentage in the geographic area chosen for the comparative analysis.

In identifying minority or low-income populations, reviewers may consider as a community either a group of individuals living near one another or a group of individuals that experience common conditions of environmental exposure or effect.

8.

When the review identifies minority or low-income populations, the staff needs to identify whether disproportionately ! th and adverse effects result from the proposed action.

This is determined by completing the following steps:

(a) Are the radiological health effects significant or above generally accepted norms? Is the risk or rate of hazard significant and appreciably in excess of the general population?. Do the radiological health effects occur in groups affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposures from environmental hazards?

(b) is there an impact on the natural or physical environment that significantly and adversely affects a particular group? Are the environmental effects significant? Are they having or may they have an adverse impact on a group that appreciably exceeds or is likely to appreciably exceed those on the general Attachment 4

6 population? Do the environmental effects occur or would they occur in groups affected by cumulative or multiple adverse exposure from environmental hazards?

(c) Reviewers should recognize that the impacts within minority or low-income populations may be different from impacts on the general population due to a

. commur,ity's distinct cultural practices. In addition, reviewers should take into account different pattems of living and consumption of natural resources, such as subsistence consumption.

(d) Assess the significance or potential significanc6 of such adverse impact on each minority or low-income population.  ;

' Provide an assessment of the degree to which each minority or low-income population is disproportionately receiving any benefits compared to the entire geographic area.

. Discuss any mitigative measures for which credit is being taken to reduce disparate impacts.

9. The staff should usarly state the conclusion regarding whether the proposed action will have disproportionately high and adverse environmental impacts on minority or low-income populations. This statement should be supported by sufficient information for the public to understand the rationale for the conclusion. The underlying infnrmation should be presented as concisely as possible, using language that is understandable to the public and minimizes use of acronyms or Jargon.

PROCEDURES FOR RULEMAKING ACTIVITIES

1. - The staff responsible for rulemaking should integrate EJ into the proposed and final

' rules that require an EIS, EIS supplement, or generic EIS to the same extent that it integrates other relevant environmental considerations.

-. 2. If it is known in advance that a particular rulemaking might impact a specific population disproportionately, the NRC staff should ensure that the population knows about the rulemaking and is given the opportunity to participate. Such actions may include translating the Federal Reaister Notice (FRN) into a language other than English for publication in a local newspaper and holding public outreach meetings in the affected area.

3. As noted in the "Soope" section, there may be special circumstances under which a

. rulemaking that has an EA/FONSI prepared or is categorically excluded from a NEPA review 'may identify special environmental impacts not otherwise identified. In these cases, the staff will inform NRR senior management and a decision will be made on a i case-by-case basis whether the circumstances warrant an environmental justice review for an EA.

Attachment 4

\:

17 l 4.- if an environmental justice analysis is performed for a rulemaking activity, the staff .  :

L

should include language contained in NUREG/BR-0053, Revision 4, Sections 3.13 and l

l -- - 5.13 in the FRN to seek and welcome public comments on environmental justice. The ,

I' ' staff should follow steps 2-9 of " Procedures for Licensing Actions" (above), to perform

- the environmentaljustice review.

l 5. Public comments received pertaining to environmental justice on rulemaking should be i addressed in the final FRN in the same section and at the same level of d6' ail as  ;

, comments received on other aspects of the environmental considerations for the rule.

g

6. When a' rule is being modified or developed that contains siting evaluation factors or criteria for siting a new facility, the staff should consider including specific language in  :

' the rule or supporting regulatory guidance to state that an environmental justice review l

will be included as part of the norrnal' environmental analysis performed in siting a new l

' facility.

I I

l i

I Attachment 4 l l l l I b u

.. i l

l I

I County A  : County 8 i .

Env.

~~

8No 3 I

p_______ _____ ______ _ _. j t.

Env. i Facility  !

Impact l Site 1 impact County C

, Site 2 1

I i 1

Geographic Area Figure 1 Environmental impact Sites & Geographic Area r

Attachment 4

i' ,

\

Site A

,__ Geographic Area A (typical)

Env. lanpact Sites (typical)

Site C Site B Site D i

Overall Geographie Area (e.g., State Boundary)

Figure 2 Evaluation of Alternative Sites  !

l

\

i Attachment 4

O ATTACHMENT 5 LIST OF STATES WITH FEDERALLY APPROVED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS t

9 1

I

STATES AND TERRITORIES WITH FEDERALLY APPROVED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS Alabama New Jersey Alaska New York American Samoa North Carolina  !

California Northern Marinas Connecticut Ohio Delaware Oregon Florida Pennsylvar.ia Georgia Puerto Rico Guam Rhode Island l Hawaii San Francisco Bay Conservation and Louisiana Development Commission

)

Maine South Carolina j Maryland Texas i' Massachusetts Virginia Michigan Virgin Islands Mississippi Washington New Hampshire Wisconsin l

STATES DEVELOPING COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS Indiana Minnesota Attachment 5

7-l l

l ATTACHMENT 6 DRAFT MODEL CERTIFICATION 1

l i

3 l

1 g

y 7 i

FEDERAL CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION FOR FEDERAL PERMIT AND LICENSE APPLICANTS The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA) requires that any applicant for a Federal license or permit or authorization, certification, approval, or other form of permission, which any Federal agency is empowered to issue to an applicant to conduct an activity, inside or outside of the coastal zone, affecting any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone of that ,

State, shall certify in the application to the approving Federal agency that the proposed activity complies with the enforceable policies'of the State's approved program and that such activity will be conducted in a manner consistent with the program. At the same time, the applicant shall fumish to the State or its designated agency a copy of the certification, with all necessary information and data.Eng 16 U.S.C.1456(c)(3)(A); 15 CFR 930.51(a), At the earliest practicable time, the State agency shall notify the Federal agency and the applicant whether the State agency concurs or objects to a consistency certification. See 15 CFR 930.63(a).

linsert name of State) has an approved CZMA Program, which includes finsert the statutory orovisions and reaulations of the State's CZMA Proaram).

j Consistency Certification:

l linsert name of aoolicant] has determined that the proposed finsert name of oroiect) complies with the finsert name of State} approved coastal management program (CMP) and will be conducted in a manner consistent with such program.

- Necessary Data and information:

(1) This section provides a detailed description of the proposed activity and its associated facilities, iProvide a coov of the Federal aoolication and other materials oursuant to 15 CFR 930.58(a)(1). which will oermit adeouate assessment of probable coastal zone effects by the State.]

l (2) This section contains the necessary information and data required by the State's CMP as described in the State's CMP program document and subsequent approved 1 amendments. IProvide information oursuant to 15 CFR 930.58(a)(2) and 930.56(b).]

1 (3) This section contains a brief assessment relating the probable effects of the proposed finsert name of project) and its associated facilities on any land or water use or natural resource of the coastal zone to the relevant enforceable policies of the finsert name of Statel CMP. IContact the State coastal manaaement aaency to helo determine relevant enforceable policies. briefly describe the relevant policies. and write a brief assessment of how the effects of the prooosed activity relate to the relevant policies.)

(4) This section contains a brief set of findings, derived from the assessment, that the proposed finsert name of project], its associated facilities, and their effects are all Attachment 6

g consistent with the enforceable policies of the finsed naq;e of State] CMP. IPrepare a set of findinas for each distinouishable aspect of the proposed activity-essentially a

conclusion of fact based on the assessment.]

By this certification that the finsert name of croiect] is consistent with the finsert name of State]

CMP, the State of finsert name of State] is notified that it has 6 months from receipt of this letter and accompanying information in which to concur with or object to finsert name of aoolicant]

certification. However, pursuant to 15 CFR 930.63(b), if Iinsed name of State] has not issued a decision within 3 months following commencement oi State agency review, it shall notify finsert Dame of soolicant] and the Federal agency of the status of the matter and the basis for further delay. The State's concurrence, objection, or notification of review status shall be sent to finsert name of aoolicant contact].

l i

. l 1

j I

L I

Attachment 6 l

i l

l f

ATTACHMENT 7 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT FLOW CHART E

4 l'

i b

CZMA FEDERAL CONSISTENCY PROCESS FOR FEDERALLY LICENSED OR PERMITTED ACTIVITIES (CZMA 307(C)f 3)f A): 15 CFR PART 930. SUBPART D)

Proposed Activity Requiring a Federal License or Permit or other Form of Required Federal Approval '

1f Federal Agency Can Not Approve Until the Requiremen'.s of CZMA 307(c)(3)(A)are Satisfied l I

3r 7

Activity / Federal Approval Listedin State CMP

> Unlisted Activity l i

V l f 3y Shte Must Notify Applicant, 1 Federal Agency, and OCRM of Intent inside CoastalZone Outside CoastalZone

- to Review Activity within g 30 Days of Receiving Notice Certification and Necessary State Geographic II l Data and Information Complete: p Defined Scope Not Applicant and Federal Agency Start 6 month Review Timeciock Geologic Defined Scope Have 15 Days From Receipt of State Notification to I y Provide Comments to OCRM l State Notifies Applicant if y Review Will Extend Past 3 Months Within 30 Days, Generally, OCRM Approves l V or Denies State Request to Review. Decision 6 Months Based Solely on Whether the Activity can (If No ResponseFrom State, State Be Reasonably Expected to Affect the Coastal Zone Concurrence Presumed)

,m l y .

State Objects (Federal Agency Cr pproves y Can Not issue Approvals)

Hequest State Concurs y Within 30 Days, Applicant May Appeal State Response: 6 Months Objection to Secretary of Commerce From Receipt of Application or 3 Months From Receipt of Consistency Certification, y .

Secretary Declines Whichever is later.

Secretary Overrides to Override State State Objection Objection (Federal Agency Can Not issue Approvals)

Federal Agency OCRM Denies May issue Approva!

4 V State's Request ATTACHMENT 7

e 1

1 1

i l

f l

ATTACHMENT 8 ENDANGERED SPEClES ACT CONSULTATION FLOW CHART j

]

l 4

ESA FORMAL CONSULTATION PROCESS Action Agency determines proposed action may affect listed species or designated critical habitats V

Action Agency requests initiation

, of formal consultation V

in 30 days Biological Assessment O} information is complete

[YES cl k starts rom missing 0 CFR date of receipt 402.14(c) data -

V Servi e f rmulates Biological Opinion 90 DAYS 90 DAYS Data is received and complete N

/

and incidental Take Statement in conjunction with agency / applicant

( l l

V

/\ Review of draft Biological

() Opinion by Action Agency and /or applicant,if any

~

45 DAYS

~

V Delivery of final Biological Opinion and incidental Take Statement to Action Agency; end formal consultation ATTACHMENT 8

1 l

1 i

ATTACHMENT 9

.SECTION 106 NATIONAL HISTORICAL PRESERVATION ACT FLOW CHART l

1 l

l l

l

Section 106 Process '

)

!' Initiate Section 106 Process Establish undertaking NO UNDERTAKING /

PUBLIC 4-- .. Identify appropriate SHPOffHPO > NO POTENTIAL TO INVOLVEMENT CAUSE EFFEGS plan to involve the public Identify other consulting pardes if UNDERTAKING MIGHT AFFECT HISTORIC PROPERTIES V

Identify Historic Properties NO HISTORIC Determine scope of efforts > PROPERTIES igd E gn.r"""> Identify historic properties AFFECTED Evaluate historic significance V ,

HISTORIC PROPERTIES ARE AFFECTED l 1f NO HISTORIC Assess Adverse Effects PROPERTIES P U n u c 4 ...... > ,

m INVOLVEMENT Apply criteria of adverse effect "

ADVERSELY AFFECTED 1f HISTORIC PROPERTIES ARE ADVERSELY AFFECTED U

Resolve Adverse Effects ' MEMORANDUM OF INV ENT onlinue consuhadon AMMM U

FAILURE TO AGREE y C C CO Attachment 9