No se tiene en cuenta el derecho de dominio que por una u otra parte se alegue, salvo en la servidumbre discontinua e inaparente - es pues tiene que

30

In 1974, archaeological surveys in advance of site preparation activities related to the unfinished 31

Cherokee Nuclear Station resulted in the documentation of 11 archaeological sites and 32

1 historic cemetery within the 1900-ac Lee Nuclear Station site (SCIAA 1974). It is likely that 33

6 of the 11 archaeological sites recorded during the 1974 cultural survey were heavily disturbed 34

by site preparation activities (Duke 2009c, SCIAA 1981, Brockington 2007a). None of these 35

sites were recommended for further investigations in 1974, indicating that it is unlikely that any 36

were eligible for nomination to the National Register. The remaining 5 archaeological sites and 37

Construction Impacts at the Lee Nuclear Station Site

Draft NUREG-2111 4-90 December 2011

the historic Stroup Cemetery were probably not impacted by the unfinished Cherokee Nuclear 1

Station site development activities (Duke 2009c). In 1975, the South Carolina SHPO concluded 2

that no National Register properties would be affected by the unfinished Cherokee Nuclear 3

Station (Duke 2009c). No architectural resources or indirect visual effects were investigated at 4

that time. 5

In consultation with the South Carolina SHPO in 2007 and 2009, Duke and its primary cultural 6

resources contractor, Brockington and Associates, Inc., defined several onsite direct, physical 7

APEs within the 1900 ac Lee Nuclear Station site where ground-disturbing activities associated 8

with building and operating the new units would occur (Brockington 2007a, b, 2009a). 9

Archaeological surveys and testing within these APEs revealed three new archaeological sites 10

and one isolated artifact location, all of which were evaluated as ineligible for nomination to the 11

National Register (Brockington 2007a, b, 2009a). Investigators also revisited the reported 12

locations of two previously recorded archaeological sites that were not expected to have been 13

disturbed by the unfinished Cherokee Nuclear Station preparations, but found no evidence of 14

these resources within the current APEs (Brockington 2009a). The South Carolina SHPO 15

accepted the 2007 and 2009 survey reports without specifically commenting on the eligibility of 16

archaeological sites or the probable destruction of resources originally recorded in the 1970s 17

(SCDAH 2007b). 18

It is unlikely that the historic and cultural resources previously recorded in the 750-ac unfinished 19

Cherokee Nuclear Station site are preserved given the high levels of earlier ground disturbance. 20

Duke’s corporate procedure for ongoing cultural resources consideration (Duke 2009j) would 21

prompt assessment and coordination with the SHPO should any materials be inadvertently 22

discovered at the Lee Nuclear Station site. In 2009, the SHPO concurred with the determination 23

that proposed onsite activities would not adversely affect historic properties (archaeological in 24

nature) (SCDAH 2009a). Information gathered during the 2007 and 2009 investigations was 25

also provided to the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians at its request (Duke 2010j), but no 26

specific responses were received and no resources of traditional cultural importance were 27

identified. 28

Investigators have identified four historic cemeteries within the 1900-ac Lee Nuclear Station 29

site: the Stroup Cemetery, Moss Cemetery, McKown Family Cemetery, and an unnamed 30

cemetery (Brockington 2007a, b, 2009a). Although these resources are evaluated as ineligible 31

for nomination to the National Register, they are protected by State law and continue to be 32

culturally important to local members of the community as indicated by the periodic requests for 33

access that continue to be received by Duke (Duke 2010d). Duke intends to continue to provide 34

public access to these culturally important resources and maintain the fences that surround 35

them. Prior to ground disturbance, the cemeteries will be marked for avoidance and they will be 36

periodically monitored by security personnel (Duke 2010d, o). No traditional cultural places of 37

importance to interested American Indian Tribes have been identified at the Lee Nuclear Station 38

site. 39

Construction Impacts at the Lee Nuclear Station Site In consultation with the South Carolina SHPO, Duke and its cultural resources contractor,

1

Brockington and Associates, Inc., determined that onsite indirect effects, such as viewshed and 2

noise impacts associated with construction and preconstruction activities at the Lee Nuclear 3

Station site, should be considered for above-ground resources located within a 1-mi radius of 4

the tallest proposed structures: the cooling towers and meteorological tower (Brockington 5

2007a, b, 2009a). As discussed in Section 2.7, field and archival investigations resulted in the 6

documentation of 12 architectural resources and 4 historic cemeteries within this indirect, visual 7

APE. Visual impacts were also assessed for one National Register-eligible property, the Ninety- 8

Nine Islands Dam and Hydroelectric Project. Investigators recommended that although the 9

cooling towers would be visible from Ninety-Nine Islands Dam and Ninety-Nine Islands 10

Hydroelectric Project, these properties would not be adversely affected because the cooling 11

tower visibility would not alter the characteristics of the dam and powerhouse that make them 12

significant, specifically, their unique design and role in the history of hydropower development in 13

the Piedmont region of South Carolina (Brockington 2007a). 14

The remaining architectural resources located within the Lee Nuclear Station site indirect, visual 15

APE were determined to be ineligible for nomination to the National Register and no potential 16

visual impacts to historic cemeteries were identified. No traditional cultural properties were 17

defined by stakeholders in the onsite direct (physical) or indirect (visual) APEs. Archaeological 18

resources located in the direct, physical APEs at the Lee Nuclear Station site and vicinity were 19

evaluated as ineligible for National Register nomination and these resources were not 20

considered as part of the onsite indirect effects assessment because they are typically buried 21

and not subject to visual impacts. As a result, investigators concluded that construction and 22

preconstruction activities at the Lee Nuclear Station site would not alter significant aspects of 23

any National Register-eligible or culturally important resources, a determination supported by 24

the review team’s independent analysis. The South Carolina SHPO concurred with the eligibility 25

assessments and finding of no adverse effects to the National Register-eligible Ninety-Nine 26

Islands Dam and Hydroelectric Project and an overall determination of no historic properties 27

affected for onsite construction and preconstruction activities (SCDAH 2007b, 2009a). 28

Proposed Make-Up Pond C, located in the Lee Nuclear Station site vicinity within 6 mi of the 29

proposed plant, would support plant operations during extended drought conditions. Cultural 30

resources investigations of Make-Up Pond C and associated developments (i.e., pipelines, road 31

modifications, spoils piles, and laydown areas) were completed in a phased approach 32

(Brockington 2009b, 2010, 2011) and included archaeological surveys with test excavations, 33

geomorphological testing, archival investigations, and architectural surveys. Direct (physical) 34

and indirect (visual) APEs were defined in consultation with the South Carolina SHPO as a 35

620-ac reservoir with a 300-ft shoreline buffer (direct APE) and a 1.25-mi zone surrounding this 36

area to encompass potential visual intrusions (indirect APE). 37

Construction Impacts at the Lee Nuclear Station Site

Draft NUREG-2111 4-92 December 2011

Cultural resources investigations in the direct, physical and indirect, visual APEs for Make-Up 1

Pond C resulted in the assessment of 13 archaeological sites, 2 historic cemeteries, 28 2

architectural resources, and 1 possible historic district. All were recommended not eligible for 3

nomination to the National Register, leading to a finding of no historic properties affected for 4

Make-Up Pond C and associated developments (Brockington 2009b, 2010, 2011). However, 5

the Service Family Cemetery and McKown Family Cemetery were identified as significant 6

cultural resources, protected under South Carolina State law (SC Code Ann 16-17-600; SC 7

Code Ann 27-43, summary also found in CSCPA 2005). Investigators recommended that the 8

Service Family Cemetery be relocated in cooperation with interested members of the local 9

community and in compliance with State law in advance of ground-disturbing project activities. 10

It was also determined that the McKown Family Cemetery would not be impacted by ground- 11

disturbing activities associated with a proposed water pipeline located nearby. The South 12

Carolina SHPO concurred with the finding of no historic properties affected and 13

recommendation for relocation of the Service Family Cemetery (SCDAH 2009b, 2010a, 2011). 14

The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and Seminole Tribe of Florida also submitted no 15

objections to the findings (EBCI 2010a, b; STF 2009, 2010). 16

Although the Service Family Cemetery and McKown Family Cemetery are not eligible for 17

nomination to the National Register, they are culturally important to local members of the 18

community and protected from disturbance and desecration under South Carolina State law 19

(SC Code Ann 16-17-600, SC Code Ann 27-43, summary also found in CSCPA 2005). Duke 20

confirms that periodic requests for access to identified historic cemeteries continue to be 21

received and a descendant of the Service and Gaffney families has contacted Duke’s cultural 22

resources contractor, Brockington and Associates, Inc., specifically about the Service Family 23

Cemetery (Duke 2010d). Duke has confirmed that the future relocation of the Service Family 24

Cemetery will be coordinated with the South Carolina SHPO and completed in accordance with 25

State law, which will include cooperation with identified descendants, solicitation of public input, 26

and an approved petition from the local Cherokee County Council for a resolution approving 27

relocation to a predetermined location (Duke 2010d, h). Completion of these activities will 28

ensure that the Service Family Cemetery is reestablished in a place that is acceptable to 29

descendants and local members of the community and will result in impacts to this culturally 30

important resource that will be noticeable, but not destabilizing. If these mitigations are not 31

implemented, the impacts would be greater. No impacts are expected to the McKown Family 32

Cemetery located near a proposed water pipeline associated with Make-Up Pond C 33

(Brockington 2011). 34

4.6.1.1 Summary of Impacts in the Site and Vicinity

35

Consultation under Section 106 of the NHPA will not be completed until the draft cultural 36

resources management plan and MOA between Duke, USACE, the South Carolina SHPO, and 37

interested THPOs are finalized. This agreement will implement Duke Energy’s corporate policy 38

Construction Impacts at the Lee Nuclear Station Site for cultural resources consideration at the Lee Nuclear Station site, the Make-Up Pond C site, 1

and associated developments. Presently, the review team anticipates that a finding of no 2

historic properties adversely affected by construction and preconstruction activities would be 3

supported by: (1) Duke’s coordination with the South Carolina SHPO leading to a finding of no 4

adverse effects to the National Register-eligible Ninety-Nine Islands Dam and Hydroelectric 5

Project; (2) Duke’s coordination with the South Carolina SHPO and interested American Indian 6

Tribes leading to findings that none of the archaeological or architectural resources recorded 7

within defined indirect and direct APEs at the Lee Nuclear Station site or Make-Up Pond C site 8

are National Register-eligible and as a result, construction and preconstruction activities in the 9

site and vicinity will have no effects on historic properties or traditional cultural resources; 10

(3) Duke Energy’s corporate policy for the protection of cultural resources, including inadvertent 11

cultural resources discovery procedures; and (4) the review team’s independent analysis and 12

consultation. 13

For the purposes of the review team’s NEPA analysis, impacts cannot be fully assessed until 14

the draft cultural resources management plan and MOA between Duke, USACE, the South 15

Carolina SHPO, and interested THPOs implementing Duke Energy’s corporate policy for 16

cultural resources consideration at the Lee Nuclear Station site and associated developments in 17

the site vicinity and offsite areas are finalized. Presently, the review team anticipates that 18

impacts to historic and cultural resources would be noticeable, but not destabilizing, based on 19

(1) Duke’s commitment to allow continued public access to historic cemeteries within the Lee 20

Nuclear Station site, to maintain protective fencing around these sites, and to protect them from 21

damage during current and future land disturbing or building activities; (2) Duke’s commitment 22

to follow the requirements of State law and consult with the South Carolina SHPO in the future 23

removal and relocation of the culturally important Service Family Cemetery located in the Make- 24

Up Pond C site; (3) Duke’s coordination with the South Carolina SHPO and interested American 25

Indian Tribes leading to findings of no additional significant historic or cultural resources affected 26

directly or indirectly by construction or preconstruction activities within the Lee Nuclear Station 27

site or Make-Up Pond C site; (4) Duke Energy’s corporate policy for protection of cultural 28

resources and procedures should cultural resources be inadvertently discovered during ground- 29

disturbing activities; and (5) the review team’s independent analysis and consultation. Once the 30

draft cultural resources management plan and MOA are finalized, the review team anticipates 31

that potential direct and indirect impacts on historic and cultural resources during construction 32

and preconstruction in the 1900-ac Lee Nuclear Station site and Make-Up Pond C site would be 33

MODERATE. 34

Preconstruction activities associated with Make-Up Pond C are the primary drivers for 35

anticipating an impact greater than SMALL for historic and cultural resources at the Lee Nuclear 36

Station site and vicinity. These activities are not part of the NRC action. Therefore, NRC staff 37

has determined that the above analysis is likely to demonstrate that the potential direct and 38

Construction Impacts at the Lee Nuclear Station Site

Draft NUREG-2111 4-94 December 2011

indirect impacts on historic and cultural resources from NRC-authorized construction activities at 1

the Lee Nuclear Station site would be SMALL and no further mitigation would likely be 2

warranted. 3

In document UNIVERSIDAD NACIONAL DE LOJA (página 87-112)