Federal Agency Provides Gordon Creek Documents

Following a Freedom of Information Request on January 26 to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the federal agency initially provided a single document on March 25th, that was an agreement with the official signatures of the parties involved with a wetland project along Gordon creek in central Cherry county.

A reply provided via email to the agency on March 28th, however denoted several known FWS documents which had not been provided through the FOIA process. Ancillary sources had indicated these additional project-related documents.

The agency then conducted an “additional search for responsive documents,” as indicated in an April 14, 2016 letter of response for request FWS-2016-00392, based upon agency records.

This eventual reply was first received by email, and then via a postal delivery of a dvd disc with more than twenty documents.

Most prominent was an updated addendum to landowner agreement NE-64850-14-71 for payment of final project costs, totaling $237,072.32, according signatures made in December 2015. Portions of the funds paid by the Sandhills Task Force were through money received from grant 12-134 as received from the Nebraska Environmental Trust. The $100,000 provided by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission was from a state wildlife grant, as provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The primary source of money was the Sandhills Task Force, as the majority of the money was indicated as this NGO being the source, according to the document. The landowner still provided $40,000.

Numerous other federal documents provided included:

• A variety of emails, as redacted, mostly in regards to site visits; includes an email indicating that a seed mix to be used “was developed to be successful on wetland and upland areas and is designed with monarch and pollinator habitat in mind”
  
• an Attachment A - Detailed description of project activities (additional details for Block 18 and Block 22 on the permit form).
  
• an Attachment B - Engineering Design plans prepared by Bob Atkeson, of the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
  
• an Attachment C - Wetland certification/delineation report and supplemental maps prepared by Chuck Markley, NRCS.
  
• an Attachment D - Wetland delineation polygons overlain on the project plan map, prepared by Ted LaGrange, wetlands biologist for the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission.
  
• an Attachment E - Nebraska Stream Condition Assessment Procedure (NeSCAP) narrative and calculation spreadsheet prepared by Ritch Nelson, NRCS.
  
• an Attachment F - Landowner agreement NE-64850-14-71 signed by the landowner and the project funding partners.
  
• an Attachment G - NEPA compliance checklist prepared by the USFWS.
  
• an Attachment H - Section 7 Biological Memo and Evaluation Form, and a Supplemental Memo regarding effects on American burying beetle prepared by the USFWS
  
• an Attachment I - State Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act (NESCA) review prepared by Michelle Koch, NGPC
  
• an Attachment J - Cultural resource review prepared by Margaret Van Ness, USFWS
  

Also included were:

• an application for a Department of the Army permit
  
• a letter from the Sandhills Task Force to the Army Corps of Engineers office in Omaha, dated December 2014, indicating that the project partners would “proceed with the described soil, water, and stream habitat improvement project activities as described without further individual project consultation with USACE.” Eventually the ACE would issue a nationwide permit, via their Omaha regulatory office in early June 2015.
  
• a project timeline
  

The documents and correspondence were the “final response” from the agency, which provided the information without any dollar payment required.

In their seeming entirety, these documents do convey the breadth of this project, the entities involved and what was necessary for this project along Gordon Creek to be accomplished.

NPPD Reply to R-Project Email for FWS

From: Kent, Thomas J.

Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2015 2:15 PM

To: 'robert_harms@fws.gov'

Cc: Citta Jr., Joseph L.; Hostetler, Bonnie J.; Linder, Larry D.; Jenniges, James J.; 'mike.fritz@nebraska.gov'; 'michelle.koch@nebraska.gov'; 'eliza_hines@fws.gov'; Holthe, Craig L.; Harding, Mary A- Board Member

Subject: South Alternative for the R-Project

Mr. Harms:

This e-mail is written in response to your e-mail dated February 13, 2015, wherein the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) requested Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) to review a new South Alternate Route for the R-Project. While NPPD appreciates the Service’s input regarding environmental concerns, the South Alternative Route that you described is not a feasible alternative for the R-Project because it does not satisfy the project’s purpose and need. Thus, NPPD intends to continue preparing its Habitat Conservation Plan based on the final route selected on January 20, 2015.

The need for the R-Project transmission line was identified by Southwest Power Pool (SPP) in its Integrated Transmission Plan. SPP, which NPPD is a member of, is a regional transmission organization that is governed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to ensure that adequate transmission capacity is planned for, and reliable operation of the transmission system is provided in the nine-state SPP region, which includes Nebraska.

SPP issued a series of Notifications to Construct beginning in April 2012, wherein NPPD was ultimately notified to construct the following approved Network Upgrades: Build approximately 76 miles of new 345 kV transmission line from NPPD’s Gerald Gentleman Station north to the Cherry County area to connect to a new substation adjacent to NPPD’s existing substation east of Thedford, and then proceed east with approximately 146 miles of new 345 kV transmission line to connect to a second new substation to be sited near the existing Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) 345 kV transmission line in the Holt/Antelope/Wheeler County area. SPP ordered NPPD to construct these new facilities to meet the following needs: (1) enhance transmission system reliability by providing parallel paths for key contingencies in Nebraska; (2) relieve congestion from existing lines; and (3) provide opportunities for additional renewable energy generation.

NPPD’s initial study area was developed in the shape of a large “L” in order to meet the needs and benefits to the network upgrades that NPPD was ordered to construct by SPP. The study area was developed to go north from Gerald Gentleman Station to the Cherry County area, and then east to connect to the WAPA line. In developing the study area, corridors, and potential line routes, NPPD considered:

• the location of section, half section, and township lines;
  
• number of homes;
  
• exclusion areas, such as existing homes, airports, and public buildings;,
  
• minimization of property bi-sections;
  
• maximization of the use of existing access roads and corridors;
  
• crossing of river bottoms at perpendicular crossings or at existing bridges;
  crossing of river bottoms at perpendicular crossings or at existing bridges;
  
• the influences of existing wetlands;
  
• potential for ABB occurrence;
  
• avoidance of crossing other existing transmission lines, especially 345 kV transmission lines;
  
• the length of potential lines, which would increase impacts to more people;
  
• the need for larger areas to site substations along the route;
  
• topography; and
  
• congestion around NPPD’s existing Gerald Gentleman Station.
  

The study area was sufficiently expansive to allow NPPD to identify locations of alternate routes within the study area that would enable NPPD to meet the requirements of the SPP Order to Construct, while minimizing impacts to landowners.

NPPD has spent approximately two and a half years completing a comprehensive process to identify the final route that was announced by NPPD on January 20, 2015. During this exhaustive process, NPPD: (1) conducted 26 open houses and meetings with the public; (2) held eight public hearings in eight different counties; (3) consulted with local, state, and federal government officials, including the Service, the Nebraska Department of Roads, the State Historical Society, the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and (4) accepted and analyzed more than 2,500 comments received during the routing process. In total, nearly 1,800 individuals attended the various open houses and hearings.

Determination of the final route was based on established line-routing criteria, which included more than 50 criteria, including proximity to occupied residences, towns, villages, and other amenities; the impact to farming and ranching operations; land use and environmental considerations; and engineering and construction criteria. Selecting a final line route that meets the project’s purpose and need while minimizing overall impacts is a careful balancing act of all of these criteria.

The South Alternate Route proposed by the Service angles through the central part of Nebraska, but does not meet one of the major requirements of the SPP Order to Construct facilities because it does not extend north of NPPD’s Gerald Gentleman Station to Thedford. After two and a half years of work, this project is not in the early stages of development, either in NPPD’s construction project itself, nor in the process the Service and NPPD are working on with respect to the development of the Habitat Conservation Plan and the Environmental Impact Statement.

Since the final route was announced in January of 2015, after the extensive process used by NPPD and described above, no additional routes for the R-Project Transmission Line will be considered for evaluation.

Thomas J. Kent, PE

Vice President & Chief Operating Officer

Nebraska Public Power District

Biologist Email on R-Project Sent to NPPD

From: Robert Harms

Sent: Friday, February 13, 2015 12:18 PM

To: Kent, Thomas J. Cc: Citta Jr., Joseph L.; Hostetler, Bonnie J.; Linder, Larry D.; Jenniges, James J.; Mike Fritz; michelle.koch@nebraska.gov; Holthe, Craig L.; Harding, Mary A- Board Member; Eliza Hines

Subject: South Alternative for the R-Project

Mr. Kent:

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) requests that the Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) evaluate a potential R‐project route alternative, herein referred to as the South Alternative, that appears to meet the purpose and need of the R‐project and have less environmental impact. We first became aware of this South Alternate route as an outcome of our public meeting in Burwell, Nebraska and a follow‐up January 21, 2015, meeting in the Burwell area that was requested by several ranchers.

We recognize that NPPD has selected a final route for the R‐project, but the project is still in the early stages of development. Thus, this should not preclude NPPD from conducting an evaluation of (or the Service advocating for) other less environmentally damaging alternatives that may arise; this is especially true given the substantial impact that the final R‐project route will have on federal trust fish and wildlife species, including federally listed threatened and endangered species and migratory birds.

South Alternative

The South Alternative for the R‐Project would start at an existing substation at the intersection of Highways 83 and 92 south of Stapleton, Nebraska and proceed east approximately 40 miles along Highway 92 to the east edge of Merna, Nebraska. The South Alternative would extend east approximately 10 miles to Road 444, northeast of Broken Bow, Nebraska. One half mile south of the intersection of Road 804 and Road 444 is the existing substation for a wind farm at Broken Bow. We have already been contacted by NPPD about the proposed new construction of a 115kV transmission line from the proposed Muddy Creek substation near Broken Bow to an existing substation south of Ord. We are aware that the proposed Muddy Creek substation siting area is near the existing wind farm substation referenced above. As such, the South Alternative could then extend along the proposed route that is already under consideration by NPPD from the Muddy Creek Substation to the Ord Substation. From the Ord substation, the South Alternative would follow Highway 70 to Highway 281, then turn north and parallel Highway 281, then extend east along an existing county road at the Wheeler and Holt County line to intersect the north‐south Western Area Power Administration line.

The South Alternative would have less environmental impact because the majority of it would extend across previously disturbed state and county road right of ways. Impacts to migratory birds would be significantly reduced from the impacts that are expected under the recently finalized route that extends across miles of remote meadows and wetland areas that annually provide a tremendous migration and nesting resource to migratory birds and other wildlife. The South Alternative would also just skirt the range of the federal and state endangered American burying beetle and federal and state threatened western prairie fringed orchid along the eastern edge and completely avoid the range of the federal and state endangered blowout penstemon. The existing final route now extends well within the range of the ABB, the majority of it is located in prime‐rated habitat for the species, and through areas where American burying beetle densities have been shown to be some the highest in the United States. The final route also extends well within the range of the western prairie fringed orchid; previous surveys confirm that the species is abundant in the meadows in the eastern portion of the final R‐project route. The final route also extends across the range of the blowout penstemon, whereas it does not under the South Alternative. While it is true that the South Alternative extends across 2 the whooping crane migration corridor and is located near the table playa wetlands east of Merna, Nebraska, its location paralleling Highway 92 would avoid impacts to the species because the whooping crane avoids areas along highways where noise and activity are prevalent.

In addition, the South Alternative route would avoid the majority of the Nebraska Sandhills and provide improved access for line construction and future maintenance because existing roads are nearby. The final route currently planned by NPPD calls for a significant number of access road upgrades and in many cases, crossing of meadows where compaction by heavy equipment may forever alter existing hydrology. Other benefits may also include a cost savings by using single pole structures installed from existing roads rather than towers that must be flown in by helicopter and installed using specialized equipment mounted on a tracked vehicle. Land restoration may be easier as well given that much of the South Alternative would extend across areas with loess/clay soils instead of sandy soils where erosion and post project restoration will be difficult.

Thank you for your careful consideration of this alternative—we look forward to your response. Please call or email me if I can provide further technical assistance or if you have questions. Thank you.

Robert R. Harms

Fish and Wildlife Biologist

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

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."

Feds Investigating Wildbirds Being Killed at Omaha

A local bird enthusiast indicated on a recent morning a few second-hand details that some midtown Omaha residents had killed several hundred wildbirds.

The details given were that the birds, especially blackbirds, had been killed by people of a foreign nationality at area lakes by use of a slingshot. Also, hundreds of carcasses had been found in a resident's freezer. Multiple people were involved. There was also the indication that a $40,000 fine had been levied.

It seemed like rumor, so on a later visit, he was asked again about this, and the details remained the same.

To learn more about this, and since birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, enforced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, an email was sent to the Nebraska Field office as an inquiry.

The response received indicated that an "active investigation was underway" so no details could be provided.

Since their is an investigation underway, this indicates the veracity of the report. Rumor seems to be fact...

Results of this investigation by a public agency should eventually be made available to the public, not only for informational purposes, but to understand the whys and hows of how the killings occurred, and how they might be prevented?

The likelihood of the F.W.S. releasing any details, does however seem unlikely.

FWS Begins New NEPA Analysis of Eagle Management and Take Permits

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced a process to engage the public as it works toward revising a rule governing how permits are issued for the non-purposeful take of bald and golden eagles. FWS will host five public information meetings in various locations around the country and open a 90-day public comment period. The meetings will be held on July 22, 2014, in Sacramento, Calif.; July 24, 2014, in Minneapolis, Minn.; July 29, 2014, in Albuquerque, N.M.; July 31, 2014, in Denver, Colo.; and Aug. 7, 2014, in Washington, D.C. For more information about the public information meetings, please visit http://www.eaglescoping.org.

The public information sessions will serve as scoping meetings as required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). FWS will review information from the meetings and use it to prepare either a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and proposed revisions to the permit regulations. The Service will then open another comment period for an additional round of public review and input before finalizing the EA/EIS and revised permit regulations.

FWS is requesting information related to its 2009 permit regulations, eagle management objectives, and the December 2013 decision extending the maximum duration for eagle take permits from five to 30 years. Written comments must be submitted on or before Sept. 22, 2014, either electronically: Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov, FWS-R2- MB-2011-0094 or by U.S. mail to Public Comments Processing, Attention: Eagle Management and Permitting FWS-R2-MB-2011-0094; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM, Arlington, VA 22203.

Regulatory Compliance Vexing for Saddle Creek CSO! Project

Compliance with federal regulations has been problematic for department of Public works officials in recent days. Different items of requiring immediate attention occurred within a day-or-two period for city of Omaha officials managing the Saddle Creek project along Center street.

It apparently started with an observation of a pair of red-tailed hawks at a nest just south of an area where tree clearing had occurred mid-week, according to people involved with the project.

There is a federal stipulation that nests of species associated with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act cannot be disturbed or destroyed.

Once a pair of hawks were noted, nearby a nest, the project site was shut down, according to details provided by city officials during a site visit on Friday afternoon, 29 March.

They thought that since the birds were "nesting" there could be no further disturbance. The project manager said calls were made to the Nebraska office of the Fish and Wildlife Service, but no one answered. So there was resolution to the situation. We "did not know what to do," he said. "Nobody knew what to follow."

So, project activity at the site was suspended.

This was Thursday.

On Friday morning a personal visit was made to the site on the east side of Westlawn Cemetery, henceforth designated as Westlawn Creek.

There were several typical birds, including an appreciated Brown Creeper, and misplaced Black-capped Chickadees. There were no Red-tailed Hawks seen in the immediate area or even the general vicinity.

Black-capped Chickadee on former habitat.

Abandoned Red-tailed Hawk nest.

What was most obvious was a lack of sediment curtains along earthen slopes adjacent to the flowing waters of the creek. Nothing was present to prevent erosional deposition from these slopes into the creek, especially perhaps during the rainfall expected during the pending night.

Early on Friday afternoon, a phone call was made to the Army Corps of Engineers, the federal agency which issued the 404 permit. The regulatory permit for this particular project, as provided by the Corps of Engineers, required that sediment curtains be suitably placed, according to an officials at the Wehrspan regulatory office, that described the particular conditions for this permit.

This was the situation during another visit to the site on Friday afternoon. Public Works department men were present, including a sediment specialist. We walked the site and discussed the situation. He said the sediment curtains would be still be put in place during the day. It was about 3 p.m.

A project official indicated more than once, that sediment curtains would be yet put in place during the afternoon. When the Corps contacted a project official, the person said the same thing, according to an email subsequently received from the Corps of Engineers staff person responsible for this project.

During the afternoon visit, a couple of other Public Works guys arrived. The four of us did a similar sort of jaunt along the barren ground on the east side of Westlawn Creek. Particular attention was given to the hawk nest, south of the boundary of woodland clearing.

View of area cleared of trees, with them piled in background.

Perspective along Woodlawn Creek on Friday.

The land was barren, and there were no hawks, and very few other sorts of birds. Though a hawk, or two, had been seen near the nest a day or two earlier, as indicated by a photograph shown by someone from Public works, my prognosis was that the nest had been abandoned. No eggs had been laid, and there were certainly no young birds present. There was no need to delay, as indicated in another call of my perspective conveyed to Public Works. The northern portion of the site could have been worked, because there were significant visual barriers, which would limit the disturbance factor, for places at the southern portion of the project site.

Because of suspending work activities due to the potential of nesting activities associated with a protected species, the sediment curtains were not immediately put in place.

The sediment curtains were installed Friday evening, as an email notification was provided to the Corps of Engineers about 8:30 p.m.

Contractor Fined for Tree Clearing Activity

A contractor clearing trees for the city of Lincoln, has paid a fine levied by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

After receiving a citation in late summer for removal of trees which contained bird nests, the fine of $525 was recently paid, according to John T. Brooks, in the law enforcement division of the federal agency.

Details on specifically what the contractor was cited for, would not be provided by the agency. There were also no details available on the number of nests affected and whether they were being used by birds when the tree clearing activity occurred.

Active bird nests and eggs are protected by provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

When the tree clearing took place, it was reported by a local resident to personnel at the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission.

The complaint was then referred to a law enforcement agent of the federal agency, said Joel Jorgensen, the nongame biologist with the state agency. A state law protecting bird nests and eggs did apply, but the stage agency referred the event to the federal agency "allowing them to take the lead" while cooperating with the federal action.

"Based upon my knowledge of the site, it has been a known rookery" for Great Blue Herons, Jorgensen said. He was not certain whether there were active nests at the time of the complaint.

The area where the tree clearing occurred was along the Platte River, at a city of Lincoln wellfield site, along the bank of the river, in the eastern Saunders County vicinity.