Document: NUREG-1555
Document ID: 5e564737-0ba9-4326-b314-fbb492758078
Document Type: esrp
Title: AQUATIC ECOLOGY
Source: NUREG-1555
Source URL: https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1555/initial/
Revision Date: 2007-10
Chapter: 2
Section ID: 2.4.2
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
st needed to predict impacts. III. REVIEW PROCEDURES The reviewer should ensure that the regional and site-specific aquatic ecological information is adequate to serve as a basis for assessment of the effects of design and siting of the plant, construction, and operation. In assessing the adequacy of the description of aquatic resources of the site and offsite areas, the reviewer should consult the applicable acceptance criteria of this ESRP section. Within these NUREG-1555 2.4.2-6 October 1999 criteria, the reviewer may find a framework of those descriptive features of aquatic resources judged ade- quate for most situations of nuclear power station siting. The reviewer should also become familiar with the provisions of the legislation listed in the “Acceptance Criteria” section. With these guidelines in mind, the reviewer should take the following steps: (1) Identify the species and habitats that will be considered “important” ecological resources of the site, vicinity, transmission corridors, and offsite areas for evaluation of potential impacts on them, using Table 2.4.2-1 as a reference. (2) Consult with local offices of the appropriate Federal agencies and the appropriate State agencies to verify the possible occurrence of such species. (3) Identify the threatened or endangered species that, based on known distributions, could be present within these areas, but that have not been recorded by documented observations. (4) In the case of commercially or recreationally valuable species, list the types of wildlife and plants that could be adversely impacted by the proposed action, and in addition to the applicant’s ER, consult with State or local agencies or organizations that maintain records of harvest levels of these species. (5) Review the available site-specific data for adequacy, accuracy, and completeness. IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS The depth and extent of the input to the EIS should be governed by the kinds of aquatic ecological resources that could