Peer Review Analysis Underway on Whooping Crane

The peer review process underway appears to be another example of the FWS inhibiting public involvement. Your agency is supposedly responsible for conservation of the Whooping Crane but the staff seem to be doing its best to limit involvement of the public and to making questionable decisions that might make the survival of the crane questionable for now and for future generations.

The peer review appears to be a statistical analysis. Many people know numbers can be erroneous if the right numbers are not used. The language of the review in some sense indicates confusion on the purpose of the process as there are obvious discrepancies.

The public has no clue what particular details are being reviewed. We also apparently will not have any opportunity to analyze the report before it is finalized.

I also find in extremely troubling that there is no one involved on the peer review that has any familiarity with the Sandhills region and its unique habitat essential to the cranes. This perspective is essential to truly understand the crane and its occurrence. How does familiarity with Sandhill Crane on the gulf coast translate to knowing about our special endangered species in the sandhills.

Also, how can an agency that has ignored essential telemetry data be trusted to prepare a accurate and honest appraisal. The participants may have integrity but they represent a government agency that might be swayed to benefit a "sister" agency.

My self and others want this review to be done in a manner for the benefit of the Whooping Crane, but at this time there are no facts to make certain this is the case.

Potential Impacts to Whooping Cranes by R-Project Powerline

Potential impacts to Whooping Crane due to the r-project have not been adequately considered by the Nebraska Public Power District, according to a recent report. Much of the report is an evaluation of a previous report regarding the endangered cranes prepared by K. Gil and E. Weir.

Once these reports became available, there have been numerous requests by people concerned with construction of the r-project, a Nebraska state legislator and others that the utility provide an adequate assessment before the transmission line could be constructed.

Primary in the report was a finding that the Fish and Wildlife Service environmental review did not consider radio telemetry records of Whooping Crane occurrence collected during 2010-2014. Including these records provide a more “comprehensive and accurate representation of whooping crane occurrences in the R-Project area,” according to Craig A. Davis, the author of the report.

Other indicated items of concern included:

“NPPD did not validate” the collision risk assessment in their crane risk model.

NPPD’s mathematical equations “oversimplifies the potential risk that the r-project poses to migrating whooping cranes.”

NPPD underestimated “the risk of whooping crane collision with high voltage transmission lines” by utilizing data for powerlines in areas where cranes would not occur.

NPPD underestimated the extent of potential crane habitat that would potentially be impacted by the transmission line.

NPPD did not consider wetlands of less than 0.25 acres as potential stopover habitat.

Crane avoidance protocol during construction were not clearly defined.

“NPPD used a rather simplistic collision model to estimate the potential risk of powerlines to whooping cranes.” This model could not be validated, Davis indicated in his subsequent, detailed discussion.

Other items discussed in the report include projected population growth, an ecosystem risk model, and a review of whooping crane telemetry occurrence data.

“It is clear after reviewing NPPD’s, Gil and Weir’s, and the USFWS’s approaches that there is considerable uncertainty in how whooping cranes will be impacted by the R-Project,” Davis said. He also suggested that occurrence records “should be investigated further to determine the types of habitat whooping cranes are using within the R-Project area...”

Craig A. Davis. 2018. Review of Whooping Crane Risk Assessment Documents for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Issuance of an Incidental Take Permit and Implementation of a Habitat Conservation Plan for the R-Project Transmission Line. Lewis Berger U.S., Inc. Morristown, NJ. 23 pp.

Gil, K. and E. Weir. 2017. Scientific Analysis and Comments Regarding the R-Project Draft Habitat Conservation Plan and Potential Impacts to Endangered Whooping Crane: Analysis of Whooping Crane Powerline Collision Risk. Ecosystem Advisors, LP, College Station, TX. 39 pp.

FWS Comments on Birdwood Creek and R-Project

The following is an email sent by Robert M. Harms, a biologist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ecological services office in Nebraska, in regards to Birdwood Creek and the proposed R-Project. This is the entirety of the email sent to the Nebraska Public Power District, and presented verbatim with his permission.

"Please make reference to a recent site visit held on June 16, 2014, that was hosted by a local landowner (Mr. Mike Kelly) and attended by several organizations and individuals including but not limited to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD), The Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited (DU), and local landowners. The site visit was informational and focused on potential migratory bird issues in the area of the proposed R-Project—especially the alternative preferred by NPPD. There was important discussion at the site visit about an additional alternative that involves routing the R-Project power line from Gerald Gentlemen Station (GGS) to a northeastern direction, east of North Platte where it would then extend northward along Highway 83 — a.k.a the “East of North Platte Alternative” (see attachment for general location). Discussions at the meeting indicated that this alternative may have less impact on migratory birds because it avoids large concentrations of birds that are prevalent in the area of the preferred alternative. There was also discussions about potential impacts to conservation easements held along the preferred alternative, implications of the line to a new Sutherland Bridge over the North Platte River, and a portion of the Mormon Trail, located just north of the North Platte River.

"As you know, a site visit was also held on June 12, 2014, and it was attended by Jim Jenniges, Michelle Koch, and me. We spent a considerable amount of time traveling the Preferred R-Project Route alternative and an additional NPPD-proposed alternative located just east of the Preferred alternative, west of Hershey.

"The purpose of this E-mail is to summarize the main points at the two site visits held on June 12 and 16 and to make recommendations for how to move forward being mindful of requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Careful consideration is needed for the development of a preferred alternative to ensure that NPPD maintains compliance with MBTA. Additionally, as you know the Service is moving forward with preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under NEPA to support issuance of a section 10 permit which may authorize take of the federally endangered American burying beetle. The EIS will address not just issuance of the take permit, but the entire R-Project including affects to other Federal and State Trust fish and wildlife resources including migratory birds—preparation of the EIS essentially federalizes the entire R-project given that the project cannot proceed without authorization to take the ABB under a section 10 permit. It will be difficult to prepare a defensible EIS if there is nearly a certainty of noncompliance with MBTA under the currently-proposed Preferred Alternative in these high bird concentration areas.

"Preferred alternative:

"The Preferred Alternative departs GGS and extends northward where it crosses the South Platte River. Of concern to the Service is that this crossing also extends over a perpetual conservation easement that is held by DU on a parcel of private property owned by Neil Hanson. The conservation easement is for a 1-mile-long segment of river frontage and extends along the north bank. The purpose of the conservation easement is for conservation of migratory waterfowl and other birds. During the course of the site visit on June 12 we learned that there are no federal funds associated with this easement. Since that time, however, we have learned that apparently there remains a federal interest in this conservation easement via parcel swapping involving North American Wetland Conservation Act (NAWCA) funds. We suggest that you contact Steve Donovan of DU for clarification and verification. Please notify me if it is determined that a federal interest remains for this conservation easement via federal funds or parcel swaps. I have cc’ed Steve on this E-mail as a heads-up to him.

"The preferred alternative extends northward across several pivots before it intersects with a sand hill, east of Sutherland and heads northward across several meadows and wetlands. As you know, the crop fields in the area provide a considerable amount of habitat for sandhill cranes and other waterfowl in the spring and fall. We are concerned about avian collisions with the R-Project power line in this area given the high concentration of migratory birds in the spring and fall. The R-Project power line makes a turn to the west and then extends northward where it crosses the North Platte River near the Sutherland Bridge. As you know, our preference is always for burial of power lines at river crossings if possible to eliminate all risk of avian collision. If that is not possible, power line crossings at bridges is our next preferred approach as birds tend to avoid areas with increased activities such as bridge traffic.

"From here the power line extends northward through typical sandhill habitat for a few miles, then turns east and crosses Birdwood Creek at a pinch point along the creek. We have learned since our June 12 meeting, however, that the proposed crossing at the pinch point is immediately downstream from a large sandhill crane roost. The area of the crossing contains an abundance of high quality wetland and wet meadow habitats that are used by a diversity and abundance of migratory birds. We are concerned about the proposed crossing in this area because it presents an obvious large risk to migratory birds that use Birdwood creek. We are all too familiar with the risk that such power lines pose to migratory birds when constructed in these kinds of areas and would recommend power line burial to avoid all risk of avian collision here. After crossing Birdwood Creek, the line extends eastward for several miles before it intersects with highway 83 and goes north.

"During our June 12, site visit we also toured an alternative proposed by NPPD, but subsequently eliminated from further consideration. This alternative appears to convey even greater risk to migratory birds via two river crossings over the North and South Platte Rivers, and crossings over a large amount of cropland that provides foraging habitat for migratory birds including large concentrations of sandhill cranes and a large meadow complex on the north side of the North Platte River. This alternative also extends near an area with several playa wetlands, located north of the North Platte River which, as you know, provides habitat for an abundance and diversity of migratory birds including a federally endangered whooping crane confirmed there this last spring.

"Summary

"We have determined that the Preferred Alternative and the other NPPD Alternative (now eliminated from further consideration), both convey great risk to migratory birds, primarily through risk from avian collision with the R-Project power lines. We base this on knowledge of the concentration of migratory birds in the area, two site visits, and firsthand knowledge of the risk that power lines pose to large concentrations of migratory birds. As you know, the MBTA prohibits the intentional and unintentional direct take of migratory birds. Given the concentration of migratory birds in the area it will be difficult for NPPD to maintain compliance with provisions of the MBTA for either alternative.

"We recommend that NPPD do the following using a criteria of NPPD being able to be in compliance with MBTA given the high level of risk associated with power line collisions by large concentrations of migratory birds that are known to frequent the area. Additionally, it is important to keep in mind the relationship between MBTA compliance and defensibility of the EIS as mentioned above. Other alternatives/approaches may be worthwhile to consider evaluating as well—this should not be considered an all-inclusive list of recommendations.

"a) Re-evaluate the preferred alternative and consider alterations to it to avoid and minimize risk to migratory birds. Of great concern is the risk to large concentrations of migratory birds at the currently proposed crossing locations at the South Platte River and Birdwood Creek. We are also concerned about the power line being located in or near conservation easements, cropfields, wetlands, and meadows that provide migratory bird habitat. We appreciate NPPD’s willingness to install bird flight diverters on a large portion of the Preferred alternative line route. However, as you know, BFDs are considerably less that 100 percent effective. A large number of birds can still be killed when they are in large concentrations even when BFDs are installed.

"b) Consider proposing a new alternative that crosses existing bridges and extends along highways in the Hershey-Sutherland area including the need for potential avoidance and minimization measures.

"c) Evaluate the feasibility of the “east of North Platte alternative” that was presented at the June 16 meeting including potential avoidance and minimization measures.

"We recognize the challenges faced by NPPD in the planning and construction of this R-project and appreciate the open lines of communication that have developed over the years as we have worked on other large power line projects together. As always, we would be willing to provide NPPD with technical assistance on this issue including additional site visits and meetings."

- - - - -

This is the response from Thomas J. Kent, the vice-president and chief operating officer of NPPD, as provided to the FWS. This email is being presented here as it is public information as received the FWS, and includes only the pertinent portion of the email.

"When the District first began studying the area around Gerald Gentleman Station (GGS) to determine how best to get the lines out of GGS and along the Sutherland Reservoir and across the Platte River, the District determined that going west out of GGS and then north and back east, would create interferences with multiple existing single circuit and double circuit transmission lines that would result in greater risk to the reliability of the District’s electric system. We also found that the area encompassing the route being proposed by Mr. Kelly includes portions of Birdwood Creek and other tributaries, and contains conservation easements, land in a Wetland Reserve Program area, numerous homes, and three private airstrips that would all need to be considered in the routing process. The area also poses significant challenges due to the lack of roads, ruggedness of the terrain, and the softness of the sandy hills. As a result of these factors, the area encompassing this proposed route was analyzed and eliminated from further consideration for the Project."

No Further NET Funding for Carter Lake Project

The following comments were submitted via email to the Nebraska Environmental Trust for consideration by members of the board.

The Nebraska Environmental Trust should not provide any further funding for the Carter Lake Restoration and Rehabilitation Project, project number 11-174-2.

This project though it is expressed as a water quality/fisheries project is primarily a fisheries project, to the exclusion of other uses of the lake, as has become apparent after closely following this project during the past few months. Numerous documents have also been reviewed to provide additional specifics used to develop this conclusion.

Particular pertinent items to convey, include one item or another, and indicate a common thread of a single purpose project with only just one purpose, despite what additional empty words were submitted in the grant application.

The Omaha City Council accepted and approved a bid for the project. The council would not have approved a bid unless sufficient funding was available. Thus, there is no need for the NET to provide any further dollars as the bid would not have been approved if sufficient funds were not available to cover the expected cost.

If this is a water quality project, why has nothing been done to address runoff from Eppley Airfield at the east side of the lake. There are several drains from this site, yet the project does not include any features to address its runoff which could include oil, gasoline and other transportation-related things.

The inclusion of bank stabilization, dredging to increase water depth, dumping rip-rap to create groins, removal of unwanted fish and placing breakwaters are conveyed as being beneficial for improving the fishing resource. Yet, there has been no evaluation of how these features will impact current values of the lake.

Placing more than 12,000 tons of rock — based upon bid specifications — in Carter Lake is not an improvement. It is a focused effort that will degrade the quality of this oxbow lake — with a history dating to 1877 — and create an unsightly lake of an industrial sort. Rather than finding environmentally benign options, the project proponents accepted the use of rip-rap which is in no manner conducive to a naturalistic setting.

This project appears to be nothing more than an effort to subsidize fishing, to the exclusion of other values.

Funds provided by the Nebraska Environmental Trust should reflect a holistic view, rather than providing a subsidy to two state agencies so they might be able to sell some more fishing licenses.

The primary runoff feature is in the northwest corner of Levi Carter Park. The pond will be dramatically altered because of this focus. The pond is now an important micro-habitat for birds but will cut-apart, once bisected by four fill structures of an immense extent of rock meant to impede water flows. Work associated with the placement of the necessary rock riprap will also clear vegetative growth along the pond's shore, causing further degradation. During many bird surveys in the area, the fowl like the pond setting and swim along freely, and massive amounts of rock will create a changed habit. There was no consideration presented in the planning documents as to how this alteration would impact the avifauna associated with the pond.

The in-lake breakwaters to be dumped into the lake will negatively impact use of the lake by waterfowl. The birds will no longer be able to swim to these portions of the lake, so the habitat important to their survival has been constricted.

These communications have included concerns regarding just one groin at the northeast part of the lake. This one bunch of rock is among the more than twenty to be placed in the lake waters, and for the inane reason given by the state agency staff: people do not like to fish from the bank.

Most of the project proponents have not been interested in any sort of compromise to exclude one groin to provide a setting conducive for signage that would recognize the Sandy Griswold Bird Sanctuary, established in the latter 1920s - then forgotten and unknown for decades — until newly expressed in an editorial published in the Omaha World-Herald. Numerous discussions have occurred with staff of the NGPC about one groin and birdlife of the lake. One discussion in this regard - concerning one unnecessary groin — occurred with an senior administrator of the NGPC occurred on November 17, 2011. Even after nearly two months, he did not respond, despite expressive comments that he would. Subsequent inquiries as to the status of this met with no reply other than a decision had not been made.

The reality of bird use has been derived from more than fifty bird surveys done about Carter Lake since late March, 2011. Even though staff with NGPC has been told of this effort, they have continually ignored these facts.

Use of the lake by birds has not been considered in any manner by project proponents. Based upon numerous communications, this is readily apparent, especially based upon comments from staff at the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Staff have said — again and again — that the lake is not important for birds. This is an erroneous opinion.

How incorrect they are, since when it comes to bird use they have no current information and have not shown any interest in considering the known aspects of fowl at the lake in the past few months.

It is now obvious that the NGPC staff have made a decision based upon a focus on fisheries, and have no interest in considering other values and uses that can be derived from the waters of Carter Lake.

The history of this cutoff lake date to origins in 1877. Changes again and again have altered this oxbow, and reduced its value to migratory birds. Least terns and piping plover formerly raised young here. Bird enthusiasts conducted numerous surveys in the latter 1920s and subsequent years to document bird use. None of this history has been considered in the current, short-sided planning for a project designed to reduce the value of the lake for birds, which is a perspective derived from three decades of studies of birds and the habitats where they occur.

Carter Lake has had a greater extent of bird use by some species during the past few months. This is based upon an evaluation of details from Missouri River valley sites from Desoto NWR and southward to Lake Contrary, near St. Joseph, Missouri.

Also worth considering is the response due to the removal of the unwanted fish from the lake. There was a "great bloom of growth" by aquatic vegetation. Then boaters complained, so a boat was used to clear away the plants. Yet this is an essential reason for the ongoing occurrence of many sorts of waterfowl.

This is disingenuous. The project proponents wanted to improve water quality, and when it happened and water flora flourished, they did not like the results. This indicates, again, a weak plan which deserves not further funding from the NET.

Considering bank stabilization, this is another questionable project feature. Carter Lake has a very consistent water level, as maintained by a pump. During bicycle rides along the lake shore, there have been no problematic bank erosion noted. The plan calls for placing tons of ugly rock along the bank, without any consideration given to how the currently sufficient situation is foraging habitat for birds and more aesthetic than glaring piles of rock! An option was given to where the rock would not get covered by earth which would at least make it have an appearance more suitable for the park setting.

The number of groins proposed is excessive. More than twenty of these will be built, with most along the east shore of the lake, and a spaced just a short distance apart. The extent of these intrusive constructs is another indication that this is primarily a project with an intent to promote fishing, i.e., a subsidy for selling fishing licenses. The reason for these is that apparently people do not like fishing from the bank. So a massive amount of rock riprap will be dumped into a lake to make it easier to fish, but without any consideration of how these intrusions will change the lake's condition.

Quarterly reports provided by the entity which has already received money are incomplete. There is nothing given in the two most recent reports which indicate a number of email communications which expressed concerns or provided up-to-date options for project modifications. The response was that the project was already designed and would not be changed, no matter what might have changed. This indicates a blatant disregard to public input and any interest in utilizing the best possible design.

There was no public meeting for the final project design where the proposed options could be presented, discussed and suitably considered. This is another obvious disregard of public involvement. A public meeting to discuss project goals and a timeline is being held in mid-January, but none was held to receive final comments on project options, or to accept plan improvements. There should have been such a meeting for project planners to hear comments regarding the massive changes to occur to the lake and adjacent Levi Carter Park, an appreciated public green space.

The project website also has not given details of any significance. Any details presented have been trite and lacking in detail. So there has obviously been an ineffective effort to inform the public. Yet this project relies upon millions of public dollars!

This project does not convey any effort to consider all aspects of the project environment about Carter Lake. It is instead focused upon one particular intent — fishing — with additional inadequate measures for another project purpose thrown to convey benefits which are dubious or only partially implemented.

The results will establish an industrial lake — changed from a Missouri river oxbow to a setting created by engineers sitting at their desks — which does not reflect a multiuse project beneficial to the environment.

It would be wrong for the Nebraska Environmental Trust to provide any additional funds for this project. Site plans convey a design which will degrade the lake environs. The NET promotes project which benefit the environment and are done in a thoughtful manner. The Carter Lake project does not — in many ways — conform with the standards of broad-based and multi-purpose projects which are beneficial to the general populace which provide the NET its funds.

There are a multitude of other proposals which could derive a greater benefit if funded. The Nebraska Environmental Trust should not be involved with any project that has an obvious bias, which misrepresents project purposes, which avoids public scrutiny, and that will result in an overall negative impact to a unique oxbow lake of Missouri River valley.

Wind Turbines and Mitigation at Broken Bow

Mitigation associated with the Broken Bow Wind Project in Custer County Nebraska, is based upon the "total acres of direct and/or indirect impact to grassland birds," according to information received from a biologist with the Nebraska Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

"There have been no past payments nor talk of any future or for any other wind project to the Service to offset the take of migratory birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act," Robert Harms said in an email response to an inquiry about this project.

"During the course of our meetings with the Broken Bow wind developer, there was a considerable amount of discussion about how to offset impacts to migratory birds that may occur as a result of the degradation and/or loss of nesting habitat. Additionally, there were some grassland/wetland habitats that could also provide suitable habitat for the federally endangered whooping crane and other migratory birds in the Broken Bow Wind Project site as well, albeit a very small amount with no previous records of use by that species.

"As a means of offsetting the loss of grassland and grassland/wetland habitats, the wind developer committed to making a donation to a land trust in Nebraska in the amount that would be equivalent to the total acreage of impact--that amount is $190,000," Harms indicated.

"The $190,000 is not an arbitrary number, but, in this case, it also included grassland" and "wetland habitats as well. The total direct impacts included road access to the turbines and tower and substation footprints, which are proposed to be located in grassland habitat. Total indirect impacts are the total acres within a circle that has a 180 meter radius extending outward from the center of a turbine, when the turbine is proposed to be constructed in grassland habitat. Previous research shows that nesting by grassland birds may be affected within 180 meters of a wind turbine. The direct and indirect acre amounts are added together to get a total impact. For this project the total was 1,762 acres of grassland and grassland/wetland habitat impacted. This total was then multiplied by the value of an acre of grassland if that land were to be placed under a conservation easement. The value of that acre of land is generally calculated through a certified appraisal or comparable sale.

"For this project, an appraisal was done and the amount was roughly $108 per acre. The total amount was $190,000 (108 x 1762).

"The project developer and FWS biologists discussed the option to donate the funds to a land trust for a conservation easement with the wind developer - they seem to prefer this method simply because it's easy and simple - they make a memorandum of agreement with a land trust of their choice, make a donation, and leave it up to the land trust to find an available conservation easement. In this situation, the Nebraska Land Trust is likely to receive the donation, subject to approval by its board of directors."

Funds provided to the Nebraska Land Trust have been allocated to establishing a conservation easement upon a ranch located north of the Calamus Reservoir.

This is an effort initiated by the Sandhills Task Force, with funding from sources, including the Nebraska Environment Trust and Natural Resources Conservation Service.

"I view this as a ready-made opportunity, available right now and a good use of the funds from the Broken Bow project - and I still do. Use of the $190,000 donation for this project will more than offset impacts to the loss and/or degradation of grassland habitats for migratory birds as it contains large stands of grassland and wet meadow areas," Harms said, noting that the endangered American Burying Beetle occurs on the ranch, and another conservation easement was recently established on land on an adjacent ranch.

In the spring of 2011, The Nebraska Environment Trust provided $190,000 to The Nature Conservancy to establish an easement on 1,742 acres at the so-called Horseshoe Bend parcel along the Calamus River, upstream of the reservoir area.

"It's always best to do mitigation in the area that is closest to the site of impact. However, I thought the conservation easement in Loup County (25,000 acre ranch) had priority over Custer County where the Broken Bow Wind Project is located, a distance of approximately 50 miles away as the crow flies. The interest was there at the ranch northwest of Calamus Reservoir - federal funds already were available to put the land under easement, and a private match was needed that we could facilitate.

"Conservation easements have the potential to maintain good land stewardship. Five years ago, I may have agreed that an easement on a ranch in the sandhills to protect species and habitats may be a lower priority, but I don't anymore. The price of grain has resulted in the breaking out of a tremendous acreage of native sandhills grasslands for center pivot development. There's also a lot of interest in wind development in the Sandhills as well which has the potential to cause degradation of large blocks of unfragmented habitat."

Local opportunities for conservation activities were available for consideration. The Natural Resources Conservation Service recently purchased a perpetual easement on a playa wetland tract of 160 acres, just a few miles west of the wind turbine project area.

The FWS and NRCS have previously been involved in cost-share agreements.

In northern Custer County, cost-share options could have been used to manage habitat at the Myrtle Hall WMA, managed by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. Funds could have been used for habitat improvement, such as removal of invasive cedar trees.

Concerning any impacts on migratory birds, the project developer, Midwest Wind Energy, did conduct a number of avian surveys at the site, according to Harms. These surveys typically include breeding bird surveys, migration surveys and raptor surveys, he said.

"Surveys will continue for a period of up to 2 years following operation of the wind project, including monitoring of collisions by birds with turbines and the powerlines," Harms noted.

There has been no response from the FWS upon a request to receive this information for evaluation purposes.

Harms agrees "that the public should be made aware of the impacts and mitigation to their public trust fish and wildlife resources that could be potentially impacted by a wind project."

The agency is considering adding information to the regional office website regarding wind power development, Harms said in response to the inquiry.

The Mountain-Prairie region is also involved with a Habitat Conservation Planning effort with several wind companies, with further information available at http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/wind.html, Harms noted.

This HCP, if approved, would allow the incidental take of threatened and endangered species due to wind turbines.

Construction of Phase One of the Broken Bow Wind Project is expected to being soon. There will be 50 wind turbines, spread across about 14,000 acres.

A second phase with an additional 35-40 turbines is also expected to be built, though an environmental evaluation has not yet occurred.

Biological Opinion Issued for Keystone XL Pipeline

A biological assessment regarding potential impacts of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline was issued September 29th by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Mammals, birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates and flowers were considered. For birds such as the Eskimo Curlew, interior Least Tern, Piping Plover, Whooping Crane and nearly all other species mentioned, the conclusion and rationale for their "effect determinations" was they were not present or that current "conservation measures" were adequate.

The primary finding was the potential impacts to the American Burying Beetle, with a determination that habitat and individuals would be a "adversely affected" and mitigatory steps would be required.

Surveys for this invertebrate were conducted in the project area during 2009 and 2010, according to the BA document. In 2011, a TransCanada financed project was taken to trap and relocate American Burying Beetles from the Keystone XL pipeline corridor in the eastern sand hills. The goal was to "clear" this species from the right-of-way prior to September 1.

Particular Reclamation and Post-construction Activities and Conservation Measures" along the project right-of-way, would include:

• alleviating soil compaction
• revegetation of project lands
• a monitoring program
• establishing a conservation trust for the beetle

The Blowout Penstemon had a determination that "habitat would be avoided."

Range of the American Burying Beetle in Nebraska, 1998 to 2010 The red dots indicate known presence. Image courtesy of the biological assessment.

The majority of the biological assessment concerns the federally listed, endangered American Burying Beetle, including the establishment of a conservation trust.

"A Habitat Conservation Trust (Trust) would be established in each state where impacts to ABB are likely to occur, including: south of Highway 18 in Tripp County, South Dakota; Keya Paha, Rock, Holt, Garfield, and Wheeler counties in Nebraska; and Hughes, Coal, Atoka, and Bryan counties in Oklahoma. The purpose of the Trusts is to offset the impacts to ABB habitat from construction and operation of the Keystone XL pipeline and promote conservation of the ABB. The amount of the Trusts would be computed based on the number of acres affected, quality of the acres impacted and average land values. Compensation would be based on total acres impacted and would be modified by habitat quality rating multipliers with prime habitat compensation at 3 times the total impact acres, good habitat at 2 times the total impact acres, fair habitat at 1 times the total impact acres, and marginal habitat at 0.5 times the total impact acres.

"Trust monies ... would be deposited in each state by Keystone within 6 months of approval of the Presidential Permit with an organization or entity familiar with managing funds for the benefit of public trust resources. Management fees would also be paid by Keystone to the funds management entity."

A "Habitat Conservation Trust" for the burying beetle would be used for species management, as indicated in Appendix D of the biological assessment. The agreement as defined would be between the Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of State and TransCanada Keystone Pipeline, LP.

"The American Burying Beetle Habitat Conservation Trust (Trust) will be used to acquire lands and easements from willing sellers, and to develop conservation plans and agreements with landowners for protecting and enhancing American burying beetle habitat within its range. Additionally, up to 10 percent of the Trust funds may be used for appropriate research such as re-establishment of ABB on disturbed sites such as the Keystone XL pipeline ROW."

The "compensatory mitigation" for temporary or permanent impacts to beetle habitat, were defined as follows:

South Dakota - $632,447

Nebraska - $1,978,312

Oklahoma - $376,491

Overall $2,987,250

Although this document has been prepared, it has not been signed by the parties involved, and would not be until the pipeline would receive approval, according to the field supervisor of the Nebraska field office of the FWS.

Habitats

Habitat for the American Burying Beetle in the Nebraska sandhills counties stretch of the proposed Keystone XL pipeline was classified under the category of temporary loss, and also as to whether it could be considered "prime" (1399.2 acres) with lesser amounts rated as poor (34.7 acres), marginal (41.7 acres), fair (120.6 acres) or good (186.1 acres). Overall, there would 1,782.1 acres of ABB habitat impacts.

In South Dakota the acreage is 629.6 and in Oklahoma, 1835.8 acres.

There is a set protocol outlined in the BA to address the presence of the ABB and how to deal with different situations. An annual report would also have to be submitted by the Department of State to document the "monitoring accomplished and progress of restoration of Project lands. The report would detail and document the number of acres affected by Project activities , and the number of acres meeting reclamation stipulations of the bond."

There would also be a "Reclamation Performance Bond" to ensure "Native prairie affected by the Project in Nebraska and South Dakota would be restored to the quality of the natural communities adjacent to the Project lands."

Consultation started in April 2008 with the pipeline developer, as document in the BA. The Nebraska Field office in Grand Island was the lead in preparing the 86 page assessment and appendices. Other state offices were also involved.

The Fish and Wildlife Service will also be involved with biological assessments for the construction of transmission lines to provide power to pipeline pumping stations. Potential impacts on the ABB are included in the biological assessment.

NDOR Response to Comments on La Platte Bottoms Project

The following is the response - dated August 13, 2010 - received from Monty W. Fredrickson, P.E., Director – State Engineer at the Nebraska Department of Roads. It is presented here to provide their perspective on the pending highway project which will bisect the La Platte Bottoms.

"I am writing in response to your email correspondence dated June 28, 2010 to Governor Dave Heineman. The U.S. Highway 34 project is a collaboration of Iowa and Nebraska. It was developed and reviewed in conjunction with local, state and federal resources for many years under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process which was administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was prepared and approved by the FHWA in 1996. A second DEIS was prepared and approved by FHWA in 2004. A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was approved on May 18, 2007 and a Record of Decision (ROD) was signed on December 14, 2007. Through the NEPA process, and subsequently the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit process, several points of public involvement are required to gather comments and address issues of the citizens. Public meetings to discuss the 2004 DEIS were held in Bellevue, Nebraska on January 18, 2005 and in Glenwood, Iowa on January 9, 2005.

"Information gathered from public meetings and comments received from local, state and federal resources agencies involved in the review of the document were considered during the completion of the NEPA process and subsequent design of the U.S. Highway 34 project. No comments were made by the public or resource agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, indicating the "La Platte Bottoms" was a significant resource.

"Through the NEPA process, a myriad of both natural and human environmental factors are considered, as well as costs and logistics in the development of the alternatives that would address purpose and need for the project. No single resource, such as Migratory Bird Habitat, is weighed higher than other identified resources.

"The Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) and the project consultant have delineated wetland resources along multiple alternatives carried forward through the DEIS to the FEIS process. Wetland impact areas in the various documents vary due to the level of design and method of delineation that was completed at each successive stage of the project development process. Through the draft stages of the NEPA process, wetland determinations are broadly assessed for the alternatives considered. As the NEPA process transitions to final project design, detailed wetland delineations are performed to determine the final wetland impacts resulting from the project. The detailed wetland delineation coupled with continued project design avoidance and minimization efforts reduced the impacted wetland area to 4.97 acres as reflected in the Section 404 Permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

"The NDOR will continue efforts to address your concerns as discussed in the meeting with you and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on July 23, 2010."

EPA Comments on Environmental Review for La Platte Bottoms Development

This is the reply received from the Environmental Protection Agency regarding the "so-called" environmental review of the La Platte Bottoms highway project. This federal agency has an oversight role. This email response was received August 6, 2010 in response to an inquiry sent a few days earlier, which had provided two agency staff some web-links to previous pertinent articles already issued on this bird blog.

"The interagency team, which included the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), met multiple times at the site and in the office to discuss the Highway 34 Bellevue Bridge Project. The Corps determined the Clean Water Act (CWA) 404 (b)(1) process was followed and the Nebraska Department of Roads is compliance with the CWA 404 regulations for this project.

"The EPA has reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Bellevue Bridge Study. EPA's review is provided pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 42 U.S.C. 4231, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations 40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508, and Section 309 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

"Through the CWA 404(b)(1) process and the NEPA process EPA believes the Nebraska Department of Roads did a good job of minimizing the impact of the construction activities on our natural resources."

Nebraska Office of FWS Responds to La Platte Bottoms Inquiry

On July 26th - following a July 12 phone conversation - an email was sent to the Nebraska Field Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, asking several questions regarding the La Platte Bottoms highway construction project. This email request included the following notation: "Note that any information sent or received may be shared on my bird news blog, in order for other people concerned with what is happening at this site, can also be kept informed." Since it was noted up front that the information would be provided on this news blog, here is the reply, received August 6, 2010 from the biologist involved with the project. The text is presented verbatim, though a few sentences not specificially pertinent to the project are not included.
It should be noted here that a Black Tern has been photographed catching fish from the waters at the La Platte Bottoms.

Response by Agency Biologist

"Background--As you know, the Bellevue Bridge project is not just construction of a bridge over the Missouri River, but also includes construction of a new 4-lane highway across the floodplain of the Missouri River from Glenwood, Iowa to Bellevue, Nebraska. The project includes construction of seven interchanges along its length. The bridge portion of the project is proposed upstream and within one-mile of the Missouri and Platte rivers confluence. The project proponent is the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) from Iowa. The Iowa Department of Transportation (IDOT) took the lead as the nonfederal project sponsor. All of our negotiations were with the FHWA and IDOT, and to a somewhat lessor degree with the Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR). We spent a considerable amount of time reviewing and responding to documents prepared to support this major construction project under authorities of the National Environmental Policy Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and Endangered Species Act.

"A major concern of ours was the potential for development to occur in the Missouri River floodplain as facilitated by those seven interchanges along the new four-lane highway (i.e., indirect impacts). We reasonably expected tremendous modification to hydrologic cycles in the Missouri and Platte rivers--rivers whose hydrologic cycles already have been hugely modified through artificial means. With an increase in run-off due to the conversion of crops to concrete surfaces and roofs came major concerns for the potential for contamination of this important confluence area. The Missouri and Platte rivers confluence was previously identified in the recovery plan for the endangered pallid sturgeon as a Recovery Priority Management Area. The pallid sturgeon frequents this area in the spring as it prepares to spawn in the Platte River. Much time was spent connecting the dots to support our concerns as they relate to indirect effects and the pallid sturgeon, but we also advocated for protection and avoidance for other federal trust resources that may be impacted by the proposed construction project. You requested several items in your July 26 E-mail--I have responded to each item below.

"Bald Eagle--Protection of riparian habitat for the bald eagle was an important issue during the course of the project review because the proposed project and its associated development could result in the loss of important feeding and winter roost habitat for the species during the wintertime--this area can remain ice free during the winter. Yes- you are correct that it was listed then, but it has since been delisted. That said, however, bald eagles still receive protection under provisions of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act--we continue to work with project proponents to protect eagle nests and winter roost sites across Nebraska.

"Least Terns and Piping Plovers--I was unaware of records for terns and plovers at the LaPlatte wetlands, but I am not surprised given the nearby location of the Platte River which provides a tremendous amount of sandbar habitat for these species. The wetlands were considered when we evaluated the project effects on federally listed threatened and endangered species. The wetlands provide no nesting habitat for the least tern or piping plover. The wetlands are unlikely to provide feeding habitat for the least tern as it goes dry periodically in the summer and/or freezes solid in the winter and cannot sustain small fish. The site may provide some foraging habitat for adult piping plovers, depending on habitat conditions, but none for broods given the distance from suitable nesting habitat located on the river. Additionally, we had no information that the foot print of the proposed project would result in the loss of these wetlands although indirect impacts could be reasonably expected in the future.

"Shore birds, waterfowl, wading birds--we recognized the importance of the aforementioned wetlands and the other habitats in the confluence area to wildlife species. For that reason, we sponsored the development of the Platte and Missouri River confluence working group whose goal it is to protect habitats in the confluence area including wetlands, riverine processes and functions, and the riparian corridor. Agency and organization representatives in attendance at working group meetings were the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, The Nature Conservancy, American Rivers, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Lower Platte South Natural Resources District, Papio-Missouri Natural Resources District, and Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. Others in attendance included the former Nebraska State Director for Senator Ben Nelson's Office who strongly advocated a level of protection and conservation in the confluence area. Efforts were made to identify compatible and noncompatible land uses and sources of funds to acquire land in the confluence area for conservation purposes. There was much discussion about contamination in the confluence area given the extensive commercial industrial land use in the past and the relationship of such potential contamination to land values. The area was viewed as highly developable once the Bellevue Bridge and interchanges were constructed. A Brownfield Grant was prepared and submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency to fund contamination sampling--this was subsequently funded by EPA. Sampling has now been completed and we expect to receive a final survey report this Fall. The outcome of the contaminate survey report will drive land use in the area. Contaminated areas are expensive to remediate and less desirable for purchase for industrial development thereby increasing the confluence area's potential for greenspace, protection of wetlands, and conservation landuses.

"Wetland Mitigation Site--I am familiar with the mitigation site you mentioned in your E-mail--it is the Oreapolis mitigation site. The mitigation site is located near a railway as you point out in your E-mail--we recognize there are some drawbacks with this--primarily disturbance from passing trains. Even so, I think the positive items about the site outweigh the drawbacks. The site is located on a level portion of the floodplain--a site that may be desirable to developers because it is level requiring little dirt work and is located between two river highway crossings (new Plattsmouth and Bellevue bridges) simplifying transportation needs. The site is located within one-mile of the Schilling Wildlife Management area and even closer to a river front property to the north where the private landowners previously expressed an interest in a perpetual conservation easement. The Oreapolis mitigation site is a good addition to these existing areas and helps to enlarge the complex area that includes the Platte and Missouri rivers confluence that is important to the Platte and Missouri river confluence working group as discussed above.

"Migratory Birds--We provide recommendations to project proponents to avoid impacts to migratory birds. Our first recommendation is to do clearing and grubbing outside of the nesting season. If that is not possible, we recommend that surveys for active nests be done by qualified surveyors and that any active nests be avoided. I have no indication that the FHWA, IDOT, and NDOR will not complete such surveys--or follow our recommendations on how to stay in compliance with MBTA. Our recommendations have been discussed frequently with these organizations for several different projects, including the proposed Bellevue Bridge project."