ML24226A044

Comment (972) E-mail Regarding Terrapower CP EIS Scoping

ML24226A044
Person / Time
Site:	Kemmerer File:TerraPower icon.png
Issue date:	08/12/2024
From:	Public Commenter Public Commenter
To:	NRC/NMSS/DREFS
NRC/NMSS/DREFS
References
89FR49917
Download: ML24226A044 (21)

Text

From: McCoy, Melissa <mccoy.melissa@epa.gov>

Sent: Monday, August 12, 2024 1:36 PM To: TerraPowerEnvironmental Resource; Patricia Vokoun Cc: Joe OHara; Mallecia Sutton; Stephanie Devlin-Gill (She/Her); Smith, Julie; Hubner, Matt (he/him/his)

Subject:

[External_Sender] EPA Scoping Comments on Kemmerer Power Station Unit 1 Attachments: Kemmerer Unit 1 Reactor Scoping_EPA Comment Letter_8-12-2024.pdf

Dear Patricia Vokoun,

Please see attached scoping comments from the EPA for the Kemmerer Power Station Unit 1 EIS. Please dont hesitate to reach out with any questions or to discuss any of our comments.

Sincerely,

Melissa W. McCoy, Ph.D., J.D.

Manager, NEPA Branch U.S. EPA Region 8 (8EJC-NE) 1595 Wynkoop St.

Denver, Colorado 80202-1129 Call me on Teams Ph: (303) 312-6155 F: (303) 312-7203

Federal Register Notice: 89FR49917 Comment Number: 972

Mail Envelope Properties (BY5PR09MB529868E62489A59E031887DDE7852)

Subject:

[External_Sender] EPA Scoping Comments on Kemmerer Power Station Unit 1 Sent Date: 8/12/2024 1:36:02 PM Received Date: 8/12/2024 1:36:17 PM From: McCoy, Melissa

Created By: mccoy.melissa@epa.gov

Recipients:

"Joe OHara" <Joe.OHara@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Mallecia Sutton" <Mallecia.Sutton@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Stephanie Devlin-Gill (She/Her)" <Stephanie.Devlin-Gill@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Smith, Julie" <Smith.Julie@epa.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Hubner, Matt (he/him/his)" <Hubner.Matt@epa.gov>

Tracking Status: None "TerraPowerEnvironmental Resource" <TerraPowerEnvironmental.Resource@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None "Patricia Vokoun" <Patricia.Vokoun@nrc.gov>

Tracking Status: None

Post Office: BY5PR09MB5298.namprd09.prod.outlook.com

Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 459 8/12/2024 1:36:17 PM Kemmerer Unit 1 Reactor Scoping_EPA Comment Letter_8-12-2024.pdf 452601

Options Priority: Normal Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

August 12, 2024

Ref: 8EJC-NE

Patricia Vokoun, Project Manager Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Docket ID NRC-2024- 0078 Transmitted electronically

Dear Patricia Vokoun:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Notice of Intent (NOI) for the proposed Kemmerer Power Station Unit 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In accordance with our responsibilities under Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 309, we offer these comments. The CAA Section 309 role is unique to the EPA. It requires the EPA to review and comment on the environmental impact of any proposed federal action subject to NEPAs environmental impact statement requirements and to make its comments public. These comments convey important questions or concerns that we recommend addressing in the EIS.

The decision before the NRC is whether to authorize a permit for construction of a sodium-cooled, advanced reactor design on a site near an existing coal-fired power plant near Kemmerer, Wyoming.

The Kemmerer Power Station Unit 1 (Project) is a first-of-its-kind commercial utility fast neutron sodium pool reactor, rated at 850 MW thermal and up to 550 MW electric Natrium plant with an energy storage system that would allow for steady reactor output during fluctuating electrical grid needs. The reactor is expected to replac e electricity generation capacity in the PacifiCorp service area following planned retirement of existing coal-fired facilities. The proposed Projects energy storage system is expected to address the challenge of variable power output typically associated with the incorporation of renewable electricity generation in the operation of the electric grid. If the NRC authorizes the construction of the Project, the applicant will need to submit a separate operating license application to the agency for review and approval. 1

1NCR News, NRC Seeking Public Comment on Environmental Review of TerraPower Construction Permit Application, (June 12, 2024) at: https://www.nrc.gov/cdn/doc-collection-news/2024/24- 045.pdf.

In addition to comments and recommendations related to the NEPA process, our initial areas of interest for the Draft EIS focus on: (1) public health and safety ; (2) air quality; (3) water quality; (4) climate change; (5 ) engagement with rural communities; (6) environmental justice; and (7) Tribal consultation. We recommend the Draft EIS discuss the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts associated with each alternative on environmental resources in a manner that will allow for the decision-maker to effectively plan to prevent or reduce potential impacts to such resources to the greatest extent possible. Our detailed recommendations are attached in the enclosure of this letter for your consideration.

We appreciate your time and attention regarding our scoping comments. We also appreciate the opportunity to provide this level of input at the earliest stages of EIS development. If further explanation of these comments is desired, please contact me at (303) 312-6155 or mccoy.melissa@epa.gov. You may also contact Matt Hubner and Julie Smith, the NEPA Lead Reviewers for the project, at (303) 312-6500 or hubner.matt@epa.gov and (303) 312-6736 or smith.julie@epa.gov (respectively).

Sincerely,

Melissa W. McCoy, Ph.D., J.D.

Manager, NEPA Branch Environmental Justice, Community Health, and Environmental Review Division

ENCLOSURE EPAs Detailed Scoping Comments on Kemmerer Power Station Unit 1 EIS

2 ENCLOSURE - EPAs Detailed Scoping Comments on Kemmerer Power Station Unit 1 EIS

General Components of the NEPA Analysis Generally, we recommend demonstrating in the Draft EIS that all reasonable alternatives for the project have been examined, presenting the potential impacts of a range of reasonable alternatives in comparative form, and incorporating feasible mitigation into the design of the alternatives. In accordance with the recently updated Council on Environmental Qualitys (CEQ) NEPA implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. §1500- 1508 (May 1, 2024), 2 we recommend that the Draft EIS provide details on the means of implementing mitigation measures and identifying how monitoring would be established to assess the effectiveness of the mitigation and ensure compliance. Below are our detailed recommendations regarding the general components of the NEPA analysis.

Purpose and Need. We recommend the Draft EIS include a clear and concise statement of the underlying purpose and need for the project, consistent with the implementing regulations for NEPA.

An appropriately defined purpose and need statement is of critical importance to setting up the analysis of a range of reasonable alternatives for all components of the project in the Draft EIS. While the NRC is responding to an application for a lease application and lease modification, confining the purpose and need to the lead agencies statutory responsibility to decide whether to approve or deny the application may obscure the underlying purpose and need that the proposed action and action alternatives would address. Such a narrow scope can result in a lack of necessary and meaningful details to understand whether a Proposed Action is needed and would serve the public interest, and what other reasonable alternatives could meet the purpose and need. The EPA notes that an alternative that is outside the legal jurisdiction of the lead agencies maystill be evaluated in the Draft EIS if it is reasonable,3 which is another reason that a project s purpose and need should typically not be constrained to statutory responsibilities.

Scope. We recommend analyzing project alternatives, existing baseline environmental conditions, and potential impacts. For each alternative, describe all potential effects, which include ecological (such as the effects on natural resources and on the components, structures, and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, or health, whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. 4 Assess all reasonably foreseeable potential environmental impacts connected to reactor construction, operations (including transport and processing of necessary fuels), decommissioning, disposal, and reclamation, including all interdependent parts of the reactors operation and those that may not be managed by the NRC in order to inform to best inform the final design and permitting of the proposed Project.

Alternatives. We recommend evaluating in detail a range of reasonable alternatives that fulfill the Projects underlying purpose and need. Reasonable alternatives could include, but are not necessarily limited to, alternative locations, designs or configurations for major facilities, transportation networks, water and natural gas pipelines, or modifications to proposed decommissioning and reclamation

2 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/01/2024-08792/national-environmental-policy-act-implementing -

regulations-revisions-phase -2.

3 40 CFR § 1502.14(a); see also Question 2b of the Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ's National Environmental Policy Act Regulations at: https://www.energy.gov/nepa/articles/forty-most-asked-questions-concerning-ceqs-national-environmental-policy-act.

4 40 CFR § 1508.1(g)(4) 3

methodologies and timelines.

We recommend that the NRC identify alternatives specifically designed to avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts to water, air, wildlife, and other resources. Identify P roject design options that avoid environmental impacts and clearly describe the rationale used to determine whether impacts of an alternative are significant. We recommend that the Draft EIS provide a clear discussion of the reasons for elimination of alternatives that are not evaluated in detail. The Draft EIS should also quantify and present the environmental impacts of all alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues among the options for decision makers and the public.

Cumulative Impacts/Environmental Consequences. Cumulative effects are effects on the environment that result from the incremental effects of the action when added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non -Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 5 Cumulative impacts analyses are important to the Draft EIS as they describe the threats to a resource as a whole. Understanding cumulative impacts can illuminate opportunities for minimizing those threats. We recommend that the Draft EIS describe the potential cumulative impacts associated with the proposed action and alternatives, as well as the methodology used to assess them. A cumulative impact analysis should be done for each resource that would be impacted by the project and should include impacts to each resource related to other mines, facilities, and land uses in the geographic area.

We have the following recommendations for structuring direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts analyses:

• Include a description of the affected environment that focuses on each affected resource or ecosystem. Identify the affected environment through potential impacts and natural boundaries rather than predetermined geographic areas;

• Focus on areas of concern, i.e., those resources that are at risk and/or could be affected by the project before application of mitigation. Identify which resources are analyzed, which ones are not, and why;

• Identify all other on-going, planned, and reasonably foreseeable project s or land uses in the study area. Where studies exist on the environmental impacts of these other project s, use these studies as sources for quantifying impacts;

• Include a description of existing and anticipated future conditions in the project area to demonstrate and consider how environmental conditions, such as temperature and precipitation regimes, are expected to change in the hydrographic area through the anticipated life of the project, including post-reclamation activities;

• Identify the future condition of the resource based on an analysis of the cumulative impacts of each alternative combined with reasonably foreseeable project s or actions and existing conditions and current trends. If cumulatively significant impacts could occur in combination with effects from the project or initial alternatives, the EPA recommends the Draft EIS consider reasonable alternatives that account for and address the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that may occur.

5 40 CFR § 1508.1(g)(3) 4 Mitigation. The EPA recommends the Draft EIS identify appropriate mitigation, control measures, and stipulations that will be applied to p roject activities, including what entity will be executing the mitigation, monitoring and inspection schedules, documentation procedures, and accountability processes. With these considerations in mind, we recommend the Draft EIS include the following information regarding mitigation:

• A description of the required mitigation and its expected effectiveness;

• A designation of the entity responsible for implementing the mitigation;

• A detailed plan for monitoring of the mitigation measures with specific temporal milestones to ensure timely and correct implementation, effectiveness in mitigating adverse effects, as well as timely maintenance; An identification of funding sources and the process to be applied if budgets fall short; and

• Specific temporal milestones to meet environmental goals and any applicable, Federal and state reclamation standards.

A list of all necessary permits for construction, transportation, water, air, or land use in the P roject area may also clarify and inform implementation and mitigation plans in the Draft EIS.

Monitoring. As mentioned previously, it will be important to include a monitoring program to identify resource impacts, mitigation effectiveness and needs, and whether reclamation milestones are met throughout the life of the project. The EPA recommends the Draft EIS describe the features of an effective monitoring plan for project activities. The monitoring plan should include environmental thresholds with protocols to assess whether specific thresholds are being met for each impacted resource and if there is a need to modify management actions. We recommend including the monitoring plan in the Draft EIS to allow the opportunity for public input. We further recommend the monitoring plan include details regarding the timing of monitoring for water. Timely monitoring is particularly important and will help determine whether thresholds are being met and if there is any need for specific corrective actions. We recommend discussing both the general timing of implementing the monitoring plan and a monitoring schedule. We recommend the Draft EIS discuss the process that will be applied if monitoring budgets fall short of the need for the project. Typically, lack of monitoring would automatically trigger a more environmentally conservative set of mitigation or operational measures.

Public Health and Safety - Radiological Conditions

Existing Conditions. We recommend the EIS include a description of existing background radiation.

Section 2.9.1 of the environmental report includes a discussion of estimated background radiation at the proposed site. However, it is unclear whether direct measurement of background radiation levels has been conducted. We recommend that background measurements be conducted in a manner consistent with the methods that will be used during operation of the plant to provide an accurate baseline from which any changes in radiation levels may be assessed.

Radiological Impact Analysis. Due to the magnitude and technical nature of the information provided in the construction application it will be important for the Draft EIS to explain the NRC requirements

5 for nuclear reactor licensing and provide clear bas es for NRCs conclusions. Since the reactor design is the first of its kind we recommend explaining where existing standards and requirements are not directly applicable and how the design metrics will be judged as being sufficient.

At the design and construction phase it is important to establish design criteria that consider extreme weather events, such as high winds and flooding. It appears that the current design criteria for high winds, including tornadoes, may not account for wind speeds and durations that could be experienced, especially considering the possibility for increased severity and frequency of extreme event s due to a changing climate. We recommend the Draft EIS include an analysis of the consequences of experiencing higher wind speeds and wind speed durations than currently considered in Table 2.1-1 of the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report. Increased wind speed and duration may also affect assumptions used for other design criteria such as tornado missile spectra.

We recommend the Draft EIS clearly identify radiological release points at the plant and detail any control strategies that are required or planned for implementation to support radiation dose estimates. As part of this analysis, we recommend explaining radiological releases during normal operation as well as non-normal conditions (such as design basis events, beyond design basis events, design basis accidents). In addition, we recommend the Draft EIS consider situations that may not have been included in these design bas es, such as loss of all primary sodium pumps and active air-cooling systems, core breach, water -sodium interaction at the Nuclear Island or spent fuel pool. Although the probability of some scenarios may be very low, detailed analysis of these scenarios will benefit future planning and response efforts should these reasonably foreseeable scenarios be encountered in the future. We note that 40 CFR § 1502.21(d), defines reasonably foreseeable effects to include effects that have catastrophic consequences, even if their probability of occurrence is low, provided that the analysis of the effects is supported by credible scientific evidence, is not based on pure conjecture, and is within the rule of reason.

The construction application includes a description of proposed radiological monitoring. We recommend that the EIS provide an analysis of the sufficiency of the proposed monitoring. Since there are populations near the plant site it will be important for the monitoring system to provide early warning of any elevated radiation levels that could migrate towards residences or occupied areas.

Due to the complexity and hazards associated with nuclear material and power generation it will be important for NRC to coordinate with EPA as the EIS is prepared. Therefore, we recommend working with EPA and other interested agencies and parties so that the EIS is sufficient for the purposes of NEPA and provides NRC decision makers with the necessary information to establish appropriate license conditions.

Air Quality

Existing Air Quality and Air Quality Related Values (AQRVs). It is important to characterize the existing air quality baseline to understand the impacts of changes in pollutant emissions resulting from the alternatives. Therefore, we recommend characterizing existing air quality for criteria pollutants and AQRVs (including visibility and resources sensitive to deposition). For criteria pollutants we recommend coordinating with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) to establish representative design values (background pollutant concentrations) based on the most recent 6

monitoring data. Data are also available to the public through the EPAs design values webpage, 6 outdoor air monitoring webpage 7 and Air Quality System (AQS) for AQS users. 8

We recommend characterizing trends in visibility and deposition near the project and at adjacent sensitive areas utilizing data available through the IMPROVE monitoring network as well as information prepared by the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) for areas they manage. It may be appropriate to work with the respective FLMs regarding existing AQRVs in areas they manage. Information is also available online at:

• https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data/interactive-map-air-quality-monitors;

• http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/Improve/;

• https://www.nps.gov/subjects/air/park-conditions-trends.htm (for information on areas managed by National Park Service); and

• https://www.fs.fed.us/air/wilderness_monitoring.htm (for Class I airsheds managed by the Forest Service).

Existing deposition may be characterized utilizing the NADP monitoring network in conjunction with total deposition (TDEP) 9 estimates as well as information available from the FLMs, cited above.

Air Quality and AQRV Impact Analysis. To accurately disclose the potential impacts of the action we recommend preparing a project emissions inventory. The emissions inventory is the basis for the analysis and is therefore the first important step of the analysis. We recommend the emissions inventory include all emissions from construction and operation of all aspects of the project under each alternative. We recommend working with the Cooperators, the EPA, and the FLMs in the preparation of the emissions inventory. We are available to collaborate with the NRC on the approach for the air quality impact analysis after completing the emissions inventory. We recommend that the NRC work with the EPA and other NEPA Cooperators to address the following analysis components:

• Impacts from each of the criteria pollutants, i.e., ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide and lead, including with respect to thresholds such as their respective National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS);

• Impacts to AQRVs in potentially impacted Class I areas and any area identified as being relevant to the impact area in collaboration with the Cooperating Agencies and the FLMs;

• Impacts that could result from exposure to Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) based on relevant health-based risk thresholds for HAPs. We are available to assist with methods of analysis and appropriate characterization of available thresholds.

Based on the information currently included in the construction application there appear to be stationary sources, which may include emergency generators and an auxiliary boiler. Therefore, we recommend the Draft EIS explain whether an air permit will or will not be necessary for this source.

6 https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values 7 https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data

8 https://www.epa.gov/aqs 9 https://nadp.slh.wisc.edu/committees/tdep/

7 Water Resources

Existing Conditions. We recommend the Draft EIS provide baseline information on the existing conditions of aquatic resources in the proposed project area, including streams (perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral), springs, wetlands, and riparian areas. When defining existing conditions, please include those aquatic resources directly impacted by the project footprint as well as those resources that may be indirectly (or secondarily) impacted by the project. I ndirectly impacted areas may include source water areas where water withdrawals will occur, downstream segments, and any other aquatic resource areas which may be affected by changes in water management or aspects of the construction and operational phases contemplated under the proposed action. We recommend the Draft EIS present data and trends regarding watershed conditions, baseline hydrological conditions, stream channel and streambank stability conditions, wetland and riparian area vegetation cover and composition, soil conditions, and fish and wildlife population health and habitat. We also recommend that the Draft EIS include a map of the P roject area that identifies the location and extent of wetlands and other aquatic resources within a minimum of 500 feet from any construction activities, with dominant and rare plant community types identified. Where surface disturbance and development may impact aquatic resources or their supporting hydrology, we also recommend conducting stream and wetland functional analyses (e.g., using the Wyoming Stream Quantification Tool)10 to understand the functions and values that may be degraded or lost.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects. The scoping documentation discusses the installation of the water pipeline, transmission lines, and the construction of access roads and outfall structures, all of which have potential to impact wetlands and other aquatic resources in the project area, either directly or indirectly. For example, the installation of underground pipelines and overhead transmission lines will disturb soils and native vegetation, potentially leading to erosion and sedimentation that indirectly impacts wetlands and streams. Cut and fills associated with grading for construction of roads and facility infrastructure, and trenching for utilities also have the potential to impact streams, wetlands, and their supporting hydrologic systems. The EPA recommends that specific design details, including land disturbance and construction footprint, for each of these actions be included in the Draft EIS.

As discussed previously, in order to determine whether the construction of the proposed P roject may have significant effects on aquatic resources, it is important to examine not only the direct and indirect (secondary) effects, but also cumulative impacts to the aquatic resource characteristics in the Projects area of influence. This may include impacts to water quality and water quantity; stream channel morphology; riparian function; fish and invertebrate assemblages; threatened, endangered and/or sensitive species and their habitat; and other resources within the geographic scope of analysis.

Additionally, we recommend that the impact analysis consider the potential for non-linear responses, where incremental impacts of the proposed project may result in non-incremental changes in environmental conditions.

In analyzing cumulative impacts to aquatic resources associated with each alternative, i f the P roject will increase diversions of water from waterways in the Green R iver Basin (e.g., the Hams Fork Ri ver),

we recommend identifying and site-specifically characterizing impacts associated with ongoing

10https://stream-mechanics.com/stream-quantification-tool/

8

diversions and/or other water management projects, including impacts from historical operations affecting aquatic ecosystems such as streams and associated wetlands and aquatic habitat. If impacts from reasonably foreseeable future water diversion and water management projects could exacerbate impacts to the same resources or ecosystems associated with this project, we recommend that the Draft EIS identify additional stressors from those relationships and disclose any cumulative impacts to the affected environment. If water storage is insufficient, we recommend that anticipated actions to expand storage and any related effects are discussed in the resource analysis.

Stream Impacts. To understand the P rojects potential effects on streams, we recommend that the Draft EIS include a discussion of all stream resources (perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral) in the immediate project area and downstream of the Project area as far as effects could occur. If the P roject will increase or modify withdrawals of water from waterways in the Green River Basin, this should include any areas that would be affected by additional withdrawals or operational modifications.

Examples of potential effects would, therefore, include alterations of streamflow and resulting impacts to water quality and aquatic life. For the impact analysis, select reaches for modeling analyses based upon their representativeness with regard to geographic scope and the type of modification(s) that are anticipated to occur. To ensure that critical resources are considered, and the scope of analysis is appropriate, we recommend conducting interagency coordination when selecting representative stream reaches. For example, consideration of species recovery areas, critical habitat for threatened or endangered species, segments impaired per S ection 303(d) of the CWA, segments for which TMDLs have been established, receiving waters for permitted dischargers, source water protection areas for surface water intakes, and recreational areas would be valuable to the evaluation.

If the Project has the potential to alter in-stream flow quantity, we recommend that the Draft EIS include the following analysis:

• Provide detailed hydrologic analysis of existing stream conditions using representative datasets to enable an adequate assessment of the projects potential geomorphic and biological impacts. At a minimum, include wet, average, and dry year analyses at a daily time -step wherever possible. Also consider potential influences of temperature and precipitation trends on future hydrology;

• Analyze impacts to the flow regime, with an emphasis on the implications of these changes on channel complexity, channel maintenance, aquatic habitat availability and life cycle requirements:

o Present and compare pre-and modeled post-project flows as characterized in the table below:

Table 1. Recommended flow metrics for pre-and post-project comparison Flow Type Description Hydrologic Parameters Low -flow Baseflow or dominant Mean and median values for each month flow condition High -flow Pulses Flows during rainstorms Mean and median values of high flow pulse or brief periods of event:

snowmelt when flows

• Duration (days) exceed low - flow levels but

• Peak flow (maximum flow during event) are less than bankfull

9

• Frequency (occurrence throughout water year)

• Timing Small Floods Flows equal to or greater Mean and median values of high flow pulse than bankfull flows (2-event:

year flood) but less than

• Duration (days) the 10-year flood; these

• Peak flow (maximum flow during event) floods overtop the main

• Frequency (occurrence throughout water channel but do not year) include more extreme,

• Timing less frequent floods Large Floods Floods equal to or greater Mean and median values of high flow pulse than the 10 - year flood event:

• Duration (days)

• Peak flow (maximum flow during event)

• Frequency (occurrence throughout water year)

• Timing

o If there are existing diversions or reasonably foreseeable future diversions from sources affected by this project, quantify the cumulative total diversions as the proportion of average monthly (or daily) natural streamflow;

• Assess impacts to stream morphology due to changes in stream flow or changes in land use including:

o Affected riffle-pool complexes; o Impacts to sediment transport, channel maintenance and channel complexity;

• Evaluate impacts to resident fish species and invertebrate assemblages:

o Present existing condition baseline data regarding functional species composition, diversity, evenness, abundance, and, for macroinvertebrates, %EPT and some characterization of flow preference. The EPAs rapid bioassessment protocol, or a state -

specific method, may be used to describe existing condition baseline habitat quality; o Characterize shifts in species composition, impacts to less tolerant species, and changes in functional composition between current existing condition baseline and post-project environment;

• Analyze impacts to physical habitat, including availability, heterogeneity, connectivity, and long -

term habitat maintenance; o Consider multiple metrics or factors that influence habitat such as loss of flushing flows, reduced floodplain connectivity, water temperature, and changes to ecologically significant flows;

• Analyze aquatic resource impacts, integrating any results from flow, stream morphology and water quality analyses. EPA recommends use of the Wyoming Stream Quantification tool to quantify any functional loss anticipated from the project, particularly for streams that are regulated by the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act;

• Commit to mitigation measures for potentially adverse impacts to stream resources and aquatic life.

10

Wetland Impacts. Wetlands and riparian areas increase landscape and species diversity, support many species of western wildlife, and are critical to the protection of water quality and designated beneficial uses of waterbodies. Project components, including the installation of the water pipeline, transmission lines, and the construction of access roads and outfall structures all have potential to impact wetlands in the project area. Given the potential for the project to affect aquatic resources, we recommend that the Draft EIS include an assessment of potential impacts that may result from project activities on wetlands, riparian areas, and associated springs, including direct, indirect and cumulative effects, both temporary and permanent. Impacts may include changes in surface and groundwater hydrology supporting wetlands (e.g., snow melt patterns, sheet flow, and groundwater hydrology), even if these aquatic resources are outside of the construction footprint. Such impacts may also include functional conversion of wetlands (e.g., shrub-scrub to emergent).

If impacts are anticipated, we recommend the Draft EIS describe how the P roject will be designed to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands as described in Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands,

including how wetlands would be identified and avoided, and how unavoidable impacts would be minimized and mitigated. To ensure that wetlands are protected to the greatest extent possible, it may be necessary to consider exclusion of infrastructure and mechanized vegetation removal in areas where wetlands or riparian areas would be adversely impacted either directly or indirectly from adjacent construction activities, changing supporting wetland hydrology. We also support establishment of riparian habitat buffer zones to avoid adverse impacts to wetlands and riparian areas.

Discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S., including certain wetlands, is regulated under CWA Section 404. This permit program is administered jointly by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and the EPA. We recommend consulting with the Corps during the NEPA process to determine the applicability of CWA Section 404 permit requirements in the project area and to ensure appropriate minimization measures are applied to avoid adverse impacts to wetlands and streams. If impacts to waters of the U.S. are not sufficiently avoided, an individual CWA Section 404 permit could be required. If an individual permit would be required, the Draft EIS should be developed to provide information and support decisions in compliance with the EPAs CWA Section 404(b)(1)

Guidelines.

We recommend avoiding impacts to aquatic resources that are considered " difficult to replace" under the EPA's and the Corps' Final Rule for Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources [33 CFR Parts 325 and 332; 40 CFR Part 230 (73 FR 19594, April 10, 2008)]. Such resources include fens, springs, and streams. The rule emphasizes the need to avoid and minimize impacts to these "difficult -to-replace" resources and requires that any compensatory mitigation be provided by in-kind restoration, rehabilitation, or enhancement to the extent practicable. We recommend that restoration plans require soil profiles and hydrology to be re-established as much as possible to the original state. In addition, the EPA recommends consideration of the mitigation rule in the protect aquatic resources even when a CWA Section 404 permit is not required.

It can be difficult to avoid permanent impacts to wetlands from placement of pipelines and other linear infrastructure. Where wetland crossings are unavoidable, we encourage the use of the following Best Management Practices (BMPs) and mitigation measures during design and construction of a water 11 conveyance system:

• Selecting the narrowest available crossing locations and avoiding crossings through higher functioning wetlands.

• The use of bulkheads, where applicable, to minimize the disturbance width for pipeline trench in wetlands.

• Placement of groundwater barriers on the downgradient side of the pipeline crossing to prevent wetland drainage. Site-specific engineering design details should be reviewed by resource agency specialists prior to approval of any CWA Section 404 permit.

• Protection of wetland vegetation adjacent to the trench by use of construction fabric, hay layers, or wood chips to store trench soils. This can minimize or prevent damage from soil compaction and soil mixing.

• Where Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) will be employed, avoid preferential paths, such as fractures or fissures, if possible, to minimize risk of inadvertent returns. Develop plans to manage drilling fluids to minimize impacts to soil and groundwater quality at the entry and exit hole sites.

• Monitoring wetland BMPs during construction and post-construction to ensure effectiveness and a requirement that any drainage problems be corrected.

• Reseed as soon as possible after the disturbance and monitor for 5 years to ensure successful revegetation and maintenance of pre-disturbance hydrology in impacted areas.

Impacts of Soil Disturbance and Hydrologic Changes. Surface disturbance is a significant source of sediment to streams, which can smother aquatic habitat, disrupt natural food chains, increase nutrient loads, and alter stream morphology and function. Construction activities can cause short-term but substantial increases in sediment delivery to streams, and roads and other infrastructure can modify natural drainage patterns and can increase hillslope erosion and downstream sedimentation on a long-term basis. Evaluating the erosion hazard rating of soils in the project area can be helpful in identifying areas where siting and construction of roads, pipelines, transmission lines, outfalls, and other infrastructure could result in damaging levels of soil erosion and sediment delivery to streams.

We recommend the Draft EIS describe site-specific current soil conditions and include an assessment of potential project impacts from surface disturbance activities. Such impacts may include soil loss, increased surface storm flow, changes in water temperature associated with erosion of soils and stream banks, water channelization, soil compaction, reduced stream base flows from decreased infiltration to groundwater, and vegetation loss. We recommend this analysis assess impacts to aquatic resources, including water quality, stream and wetland processes, and fish populations/habitat, and provide mitigation measures to address such impacts.

Project elements such as vegetation removal, construction activities, and grading are likely to increase surface runoff and can cause sedimentation loading and possible pollutant delivery. The EPAs general recommendations include:

• Minimize stream crossings and avoid or bridge wetlands and sensitive ecological areas where practicable;

• Locate roads, pipelines, transmission lines, and other infrastructure away from difficult to replace resources, such as wetlands, streams, and riparian areas as much as possible;

12

• Locate roads, pipelines, and transmission lines away from steep slopes or erosive soils;

• Locate cut and fill in areas that are unlikely to impact wetland hydrology; and

• Provide road drainage and control surface erosion with water bars, crowns, and ditch relief culverts to promote drainage off roads or along road.

Mitigation. The EPA recommends the Draft EIS describe alternatives and mitigation to avoid, reduce and compensate for impacts associated with the project including water quality impacts, wetland and aquatic resources impacts, and permanent vegetation change and permanent habitat loss. We recommend that each alternative in the Draft EIS explicitly include identification of mitigation where impacts are expected. Monitoring and modeling efforts are key components for accurately assessing current conditions, predicting project impacts, and ultimately ensuring adequate mitigation planning and implementation of effective mitigation. The higher the uncertainty is surrounding project impacts, the more emphasis there should be on providing mitigation details to assure protection of resources.

At a minimum, we recommend including the following information in the Draft EIS:

• Provide a list of BMPs that will be required to protect water resources, and a discussion of the circumstances under which the BMPs would be applied (e.g., proximity to surface water resources, presence of erosive soils, slope, sensitive aquifers, spring emergences, etc.);

• Provide a description of the required mitigation and its expected effectiveness;

• Identify the entity responsible for implementing the mitigation;

• Outline a detailed plan for the monitoring of the mitigation measures to ensure timely and correct implementation and maintenance

• Outline a detailed plan for existing condition baseline monitoring if data are lacking;

• Provide an evaluation process for determining the effectiveness of the implemented mitigation and further measures to apply in cases of ineffectiveness;

• Define specific management decision points based upon protecting desired environmental conditions (thresholds) in the project area, which would trigger action;

• Identify management alternatives and mitigation measures that would be implemented should a threshold be exceeded and timeframes for corrective action;

• Identify funding sources and financial assurances to sustain mitigation commitments;

• Establish mechanisms for public disclosure of the analysis and management decisions; and

• Define specific temporal milestones to meet revegetation and restoration standards. We emphasize the importance of the Draft EIS including details on mitigation measures for any impacted resource, especially effects related to water quality, stream morphology, and aquatic life impacts. Ensuring that any compensatory mitigation details presented are consistent with the 2008 Rule on Compensatory Mitigation for Losses to Aquatic Resources for CWA Section 404 related impacts can help streamline permitting when a CWA 404 permit is required prior to project implementation.

Climate Change

Consistent with Executive Order 14008 - Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad (86 Fed. Reg. 7619, January 25, 2021) 11 - the EPA recommends that the NRC quantify and assess the climate impacts

11 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/02/01/2021- 02177/tackling-the-climate-crisis-at-home -and-abroad 13 associated with project construction and operation over its full operational lifespan. We recommend using the Council on Environmental Qualitys (CEQ) National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change. 12 The CEQ issued this interim guidance to assist Federal agencies in assessing and disclosing climate impacts during environmental reviews. Based on this guidance, we recommend addressing the following for each alternative in the Draft EIS:

• Estimate the anticipated direct and indirect GHG emissions associated with the project and its alternatives. The NEPA.gov website includes a non-exhaustive list of GHG accounting tools 13 available to agencies. We also recommend estimating GHG emissions values in carbon dioxide (CO2)-equivalent terms and translating the emissions into equivalencies that are more easily understood by the public (e.g., annual GHG emissions from x number of motor vehicles, see https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator).

• Include a detailed discussion of the p rojects GHG emissions in the context of state, national, and international GHG emissions reduction goals, including the U.S. 2030 Paris GHG reduction target and 2050 net-zero pathway. 14

• Account for the Projects climate impacts and benefits by utilizing EPAs November 2023 Report on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases: Estimates Incorporating Recent Scientific Advances 15 to calculate the social cost of GHG emissions (see more on these new estimates below). Estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases (SC-GHG) 16 can be informative for assessing the impacts of GHG emissions and are regularly used to inform federal decision making. SC -GHG estimates allow analysts to monetize the net climate damages or benefits associated with changes in carbon dioxide and other GHG emissions which provides useful information to the public and decision-makers.

The EPA recommends that the NRC avoid relying on percentage comparisons between planning-level and state, national, or global GHG emissions in the NEPA document, as such comparisons can inappropriately minimize the significance of planning -level GHG emissions. All GHG emissions have incremental impacts that are important to consider and mitigate or avoid. In particular, we encourage the NRC to assess GHG emissions estimates in an effort to inform and support expected potential benefits from the proposed advanced reactor technology and any conclusions to that effect made in the EIS.

Social Cost of GHGs. The February 2021 Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases Technical Support Document:

Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990 developed by the Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States

12 https://ceq.doe.gov/guidance/ceq_guidance_nepa -ghg.html 13 https://ceq.doe.gov/guidance/ghg-tools-and-resources.html 14 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/22/fact-sheet-president-biden-sets-2030 -

greenhouse-gas -pollution-reduction-target-aimed-at-creating -good-paying-union-jobs-and-securing-u-s-leadership-on-clean-energy-technologies/

15 See https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/epa_scghg_2023_report_final.pdf.

16 EPA uses the general term, social cost of greenhouse gases (SC -GHG), where possible because analysis of GHGs other than CO2 are also relevant when assessing the climate damages resulting from GHG emissions. The social cost of carbon (SC-CO2), social cost of methane (SC-CH4), and social cost of nitrous oxide (SC-N 2O) can collectively be referenced as the SC -

GHG.

14 Government (IWG) was recently updated by EPAs November 2023 Report on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases: Estimates Incorporating Recent Scientific Advances. 17 This document improves upon the IWG methodologies for calculating SC-GHGs by incorporating more scientifically defensible discount rates which consider sources of uncertainty and more accurately reflect modern economic theory and climate change models. These updated discount rate values were also calibrated using global economic growth and inflation rates through the year 2080.

We therefore recommend calculating SC -GHGs in the Draft EIS using the new discount rates summarized at the beginning of the November 2023 document. To better assist lead agencies with the utilization of these updated estimates, the EPA has also recently released a Microsoft Excel Workbook for Applying SC-GHG Estimates v.1.0.1 spreadsheet which can be accessed at https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/scghg along with the updated report. This workbook presents a plug and play solution for converting project emissions estimates into SC-GHG evaluations.

Please feel free to reach out to us directly if there are any follow up questions regarding these recent updates. We are also available to assist the NRC with using the workbook if desired.

Engaging with Rural Communities

Consistent with Executive Orders 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government (86 Fed. Reg. 7009, Jan. 25, 2021) and 14008, Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad (86 Fed. Reg. 7619, Feb. 1, 2021), the EPA recommends meaningfully engaging with rural communities and stakeholders to understand their experiences and address their concerns with respect to the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and alternatives. Rural communities (including subsistence households) are often more closely linked to ecosystems and their services, making it especially important that people living in such communities have opportunities for input into decision-making about local land use and utilization of natural resources, including how federal actions may affect their access to and management of natural and cultural resources.

Using Accessible Mechanisms to Address Systemic Barriers. Limited broadband and media access in rural locations may warrant using various outreach strategies such as email, letter, phone calls, and advertising of public meetings in local community venues (e.g., at markets, community centers, and community events). Hybrid meeting options which include online and call-in participants also serve to increase engagement with community members who may be unable to participate in in -person events.

Meaningful engagement can also be fostered by presenting a clear project purpose, adequate project information, and associated stakes; and holding meetings as early as possible in the NEPA process while continuing to provide information and opportunities for input on an ongoing basis. Using multiple meeting formats, including in-person, virtual, and hybrid models allow real time interaction with project contributors, officials, and interested stakeholders and would serve the p roject by identifying resource areas for detailed analysis.

Engaging trusted community intermediaries and tailoring engagement to distinct segments of the population can also build trust, as can walking the project area to facilitate mutual understanding of the circumstances and concerns facing rural stakeholders. Potential disconnection of rural

17 See https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-12/epa_scghg_2023_report_final.pdf.

15 communities from largely urban-based political power structures and limited organization and influence over the factors that impact their well-being make such outreach and engagement strategies especially important. We recommend that the Draft EIS describe the process and outcome of engagement with rural communities, including how their concerns were addressed in the range of alternatives. As part of this, we recommend that the Draft EIS detail who was contacted and how.

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (February 11, 1994), 18 was supplemented by Executive Order 14096, Revitalizing Our Nations Commitment to Environmental Justice for All ( April 26, 2023) 19, which directs federal agencies, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law: to identify, analyze, and address disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects (including risks) and hazards of Federal activities, including those related to climate change and cumulative impacts of environmental and other burdens on communities with environmental justice concerns. Section 3(b)(i) of EO 14096 also directs the EPA to assess whether each agency analyzes and avoids or mitigates disproportionate human health and environmental effects on communities with environmental justice concerns when carrying out responsibilities under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7609. Consistent with EO s 12898, 14096, and the CEQs Environmental Justice Guidance Under NEPA, 20 the EPA recommends the Draft EIS:

• Identify people of color and/or low-income populations within the geographic scope of the impact area, including the sources of data and a description of the methodology and criteria utilized. This should involve comparing percentages of low income and/or minority residents in the project vicinity to an appropriate reference community.

• Document meaningful engagement of such communities 21 with respect to the NRCs decisions surrounding the proposed project. As directed by the Presidential Memorandum on E.O. 12898,

[e]ach Federal agency shall provide opportunities for community input in the NEPA process, including identifying potential effects and mitigation measures in consultation with affected communities and improving the accessibility of meetings, crucial docu ments, and notices. 22 We recommend including a detailed community outreach strategy aimed at gaining local input from all communities that could be affected, specifying targeted activities to reach low income and/or minority communities, and describing how input would be used to inform project development. A report of the Federal Interagency Working Group on EJ (EJ IWG), entitled Promising Practices for EJ Methodologies in NEPA Reviews, 23 provides further information and recommendations for enhancing public participation in NEPA analyses.

• Assess EJ and other socioeconomic concerns for any low-income and minority communities, including an assessment of historic, ongoing, and cumulative baseline environmental impacts,

18 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/1994/02/16/94-3685/federal-actions-to-address-environmental-justice-in-minority-populations-and-low-income-populations.

19 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2023- 04-26/pdf/2023-08955.pdf.

20 CEQs Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act is available at:

https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/ceq-environmental-justice-guidance-under-national-environmental-policy-act.

21 See EO 14096 Sec. 3(vii).

22 https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/presidential-memorandum-heads-all-departments -and-agencies-executive-order.

23 https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-08/documents/nepa_promising_practices_document_2016.pdf 16 including health impacts due to cumulative pollution loads, and identification of any already disproportionate impacts being experienced by overburdened communities.

• Assess the potential for the project and alternatives to further add to impacts (directly, indirectly, and/or cumulatively) and in so doing, cause disproportionate and adverse human health or environmental impacts to already overburdened communities. Environmental and health risks to communities from the proposed project include, but are not limited to air quality impacts, stream degradation, and safety risks. The Draft EIS should evaluate the scope, intensity, and duration of all potential impacts as they relate to public health and safety. We also recommend assessing ongoing and intensifying impacts from climate change and any nexus between climate change and EJ considerations.

• Identify mitigation measures or alternatives to avoid or reduce any potential adverse impacts to communities with EJ concerns, including climate adaptation and resilience measures.

We also recommend involving the affected communities in developing such mitigation measures and alternatives such that mitigation goals and objectives aim to ensure that disproportionate impacts to overburdened and underrepresented communities in the planning area are avoided, minimized, or offset through the establishment of project stipulations that protect or benefit communities.

Coordination and collaboration with community members and groups, local government organizations, academic institutions, not-for-profit organizations, and other stakeholders in the planning area is also generally important for identifying community-specific concerns.

We recommend incorporating EJ considerations into all aspects of the NEPA analysis, including the range of alternatives analyzed; assessment of potential impacts, including cumulative impacts; mitigation requirements; selection of the preferred alternative; and the ultimate federal decision.

Tools are available to assist the project team in their EJ analysis for the Draft EIS. The EJ IWGs Promising Practices for EJ Methodologies in NEPA Reviews 24 includes examples of methodologies used across the Federal government for EJ analyses in the NEPA process. In addition, EPAs EJScreen is a publicly available mapping tool designed to screen for communities living with or vulnerable to EJ concerns (see more on this tool below).

Use of EJScreen. EJScreen 25 is EPAs nationally consistent EJ screening and mapping tool. EJScreen offers a variety of powerful data and mapping capabilities that enable users to understand details about the population of an area and the environmental conditions in which they live. The tool provides information on environmental and socioeconomic indicators as well as pollution sources, health disparities, critical service gaps, and climate change data. The data is displayed in color-coded maps and standard data reports which feature how a selected location compares to the rest of the nation and state.

Assessing EJScreen information is a useful first step in understanding or highlighting locations that may be candidates for further review and outreach. For purposes of NEPA review, a project is considered to be in an area of potential EJ concern when an EJScreen analysis for the impacted area shows one or

24 The EJ IWGs Promising Practices for EJ Methodologies in NEPA Reviews" is available at:

https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/ej-iwg-promising-practices-ej-methodologies-nepa -reviews.

25 https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen 17 more of the twelve EJ Indexes at or above the 80th percentile in the nation and/or state. An area may also warrant additional review if other information suggests the potential for EJ concerns. An EJScreen analysis which does not reveal the potential for EJ concerns should not be interpreted to mean that there are definitively no EJ concerns present.

At a minimum, it is recommended to consider EJScreen information for the block group(s) which contain(s) the proposed action and a buffer around that area as far as effects could occur. Areas of impact can be very focused and contained within a single block group or be broader, spanning across several block groups and communities. When assessing large geographic areas, it is recommended to consider the individual block groups within the project area in addition to an area-wide assessment.

This can help identify individual areas within the overall project area that may warrant further consideration, analysis, or outreach. Likewise, while county level reports can provide meaningful baseline information upon which to compare smaller geographies, county level reports should not be used to determine the presence, or absence, of areas of potential EJ concern.

EJScreen can be used to identify places to perform community outreach such as schools or places of worship. These data can be found in the tools Places tab. EJScreen also provides information on linguistic isolation and languages spoken, which can help inform community outreach and engagement.

EJScreen outputs should be supplemented with additional information and local knowledge. The tools standard data report should not be considered a substitute for conducting a full EJ analysis. Users should keep in mind that screening tools are subject to substantial uncertainty in their demographic and environmental data, particularly when looking at small geographic areas. Important caveats and uncertainties apply to this screening-level information, so it is essential to understand the limitations on appropriate interpretations and applications of these indicators. Please see the EJScreen Technical Docu menation 26 for a discussion of these issues.

Tribal Consultation

The EPA encourages the NRC to consult with all potentially interested Tribal nations during the development of the Draft EIS and incorporate feedback from the Tribes when making decisions regarding the project. We also recommend documenting this consultation in the Draft EIS and discussing the role of the Tribes in the decision-making process.

We encourage that formal government-to-government consultation take place early in the scoping phase of the project planning process to ensure that all issues are adequately addressed in the Draft EIS. The principles for interactions with tribal governments are outlined in the Presidential Memorandum on Government -to Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments and in EO 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. 27, 28 Best Practices for

26 https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen/technical-information-and-data-downloads 27 EO 13175 https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/26/memorandum-on-tribal-consultation-and-strengthening-nation-to-nation-relationships/; 86 FR 7491 (01/29/2021).

28 Memorandum on Government-to-Government Relationships with Tribal Governments https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/WCPD-2004-09-27/pdf/WCPD-2004-09-27-Pg2106.pdf 18 Identifying and Protecting Tribal Treaty Rights, Reserved Rights, and Other Similar Rights in Federal Regulatory Actions and Federal Decision-Making was issued on November 30, 2022, and represents the most current and comprehensive federal recommendations for contacting and consulting with Tribal governments. 29 We recommend cross -referencing Section 7 of this document with the T ribal consultation procedures proposed for the project to ensure that all relevant policies (e.g., treaty rights, tribal sovereignty rights, etc.) are considered and that a similar level of opportunity for early and adaptable engagement is available under the NRCs EIS development process.

To the extent such information is not sensitive or otherwise confidential, we recommend the Draft EIS document the contact made with Tribal communities, include a summary of the results of Tribal consultation, and identify the main concerns expressed by Tribes, how those concerns were addressed, and what additional or continuing consultations may be warranted. We also recommend identifying any protection, mitigation, and enhancement measures that are identified by Tribes. We recommend the Draft EIS summarize the areas in which mutually desired outcomes or consensus with Tribes has been or is expected to be achieved regarding their treaty or reserved rights. Resources with cultural and religious significance to any Tribal communities should be identified at the discretion of the Tribe.

As a resource, we recommend the document Best Practices Guide for Federal Agencies Regarding Tribal and Native Hawaiian Sacred Sites for current federal Tribal consultation standards for protecting and improving access to Tribal sacred sites on federal lands. 30 We further recommend referencing Tribal Consultation: Best Practices in Historic Preservation published by the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. 31 Consultation for Tribal cultural resources is further required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 32

29 Best Practices for Identifying and Protecting Tribal Treaty Rights, Reserved Rights, and Other Similar Rights in Federal Regulatory Actions and Federal Decision-Making. Available at https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/dup/inline-files/best_practices_guide.pdf 30 Best Practices Guide for Federal Agencies Regarding Tribal and Native Hawaiian Sacred Site. Available at https://www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/media_document/sacred_sites_guide_508_2023-1205.pdf 31 National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. May 2005. Tribal Consultation: Best Practices in Historic Preservation. Available at https://www.nathpo.org/assets/pdf/NATHPO_Best_Practices/

32 See https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-36/chapter-VIII/part-800/subpart-A.

19