Document: NUREG-1555
Document ID: c5012ace-4e02-4365-8e19-adad51f2d654
Document Type: esrp
Title: TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS
Source: NUREG-1555
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1555/initial/
Revision Date: 2007-10
Chapter: 4
Section ID: 4.3.1
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
ed plans for preventing soil erosion runoff to surface waters and revegetating disturbed soil - disposal of construction wastes that will need landfill or special disposal ` impacts to floodplains and wetlands on the power line right-of-way. (b) Become familiar with the provisions of standards, guides, and agreements that are pertinent to the construction of nuclear power stations: ` Refer to the “Acceptance Criteria” section of this ESRP for a list of those that are applicable to this environmental review. ` Consult with appropriate agencies, when necessary (e.g., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State wildlife agency) to ensure compliance with the applicable regulations. ` Analyze construction activities in light of recognized “good practice.” The term “good practice” as used here will refer to those construction activities that tend to mitigate adverse environmental impacts. IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS Input to the EIS should include (1) a list of adverse impacts of construction to terrestrial ecosystems, (2) a list of the impacts for which there are measures or controls to limit adverse impacts and the NUREG-1555 4.3.1-8 October 1999 associated measures and controls, (3) the applicant’s commitments to limit these impacts, and (4) the staff’s evaluation of the adequacy of the applicant’s measures and controls to limit adverse impacts. This information should be summarized and provided to the reviewer of ESRP Section 4.6. Any construction activity that should receive mitigative action should be described by the staff. Where mitigation is an option, the reviewer should evaluate appropriate measures, which could include alternative placement of structures, alternative schedules, or alternative construction practices. The reviewer should also evaluate alternatives for any proposed construction activity that is predicted to result in an adverse impact that cannot be mitigated. Practices proposed by the applicant for the protection of the