Document: NUREG-1555
Document ID: 62bf53b4-c75d-48ce-825c-84c032fa32be
Document Type: esrp
Title: AQUATIC 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: 4.3.2
CFR Part: 
CFR Title: 

Content:
rtinent to the construction of nuclear power stations: NUREG-1555 4.3.2-10 October 1999 ` Refer to the “Acceptance Criteria” section of this ESRP for a list of the standards that are applicable to this environmental review. ` Where required by these provisions, consult with the reviewers of ESRP 2.3 and with appropriate agencies (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 best management practices. IV. EVALUATION FINDINGS Input to the EIS should include (1) a list of adverse impacts of construction to aquatic ecosystems, (2) a list of the impacts for which there are measures or controls to limit adverse impacts and the 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 by the reviewer of ESRP Section 4.6. For all construction activities, the commitment of aquatic resources should be indicated. The reviewer should also evaluate the proposed construction activities to ensure that the applicant is planning to use generally acceptable practices that should result in minimizing impacts associated with such practices (see 40 CFR 423.40). Practices and commitments proposed by the applicant for the protection of the environment should be described. Any construction activity that should receive mitigative action should be described by the staff. Where mitigation of a predicted impact 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 evaluate alternatives for any proposed construction activity that is predicted to result in an adverse impact that cannot be mitigated. The depth and extent of