Ranch Land Facing Threat of Eminent Domain

June 21, 2018. Ranch land facing threat of eminent domain. Grant County News 133(47): 1, 3.

Ranchland heritage established by Dan and Barbara Welch is facing the threat of eminent domain that would impose an industrial powerline on their place south of Thedford.

The Federal Aviation Administration has issued multiple documents, each of them titled as a “determination of no hazard to air navigation” for a transmission line, which is basically for 35 industrial powerline towers – built 1350 feet apart – associated with the Nebraska Public Power District r-project. The powerline constructs would transit the Brush Creek Ranch and other private property south and southeast of Thedford.

One of the approved towers, more than 132 feet in height, would be placed on the southern edge of the Brush Creek Ranch, and adjacent to highway 83. The proposed powerline would continue a short distance to the north, then go easterly, and then again northward as the final tower having been considered by the FAA would be adjacent to the Middle Loup River, just south of what would be an expanded power substation east of Thedford, along Highway 2.

The towers needed for the 345-kV industrial powerline at the designated locations would vary in height from 62 feet to 140 feet, with 29 more than a hundred feet in height. Work is scheduled to be completed from January 2019 to December 2020. The “determination” would expire if construction had not been started by December 4, 2019. There would be no requirements for marking or lighting, according to the FAA documents. Maps indicating the specific placement of each tower are provided at the agency website.

The type of tower is not indicated by the FAA summary page. There would apparently be several monopole towers along a short distance of Highway 83 and then steel-lattice towers on rangeland of the Brush Creek Ranch, according to environmental review documentation.

NPPD would have to also use eminent domain to place monopoles on nearby property owned by Brent Steffen, just south of the Brush Creek Ranch, and along Highway 83. Both Welch – who has undertaken legal action to prevent NPPD from accessing his property – and Steffen – who has written several letters to editors in different newspapers – have been very consistent and vocal opponents to the r-project. Neither of them have signed an easement agreement to allow powerline construction on their personally owned private property. Thus eminent domain procedures by NPPD would be required for construction to occur in Thomas county and notably elsewhere along the proposed 225 mile powerline corridor where every request by the power company for many easements have been unacceptable to multiple property owners.

Vehicular access would be necessary along the entire length of the transmission line and would continue to be needed for years for ongoing maintenance requirements.

Construction through the middle of the Welch Ranch would involve placement of monopoles using huge cranes and seemingly be done because of readily available access along Highway 83? Then lattice towers, would apparently be placed using a helicopter, according to r-project documents; associated ground crews would drive vehicles across the hills. A very local staging area where lattice tower pieces would be put together and flight landings would be required, according to details provided by NPPD in federal project application documents. There is a dearth of details on “staging areas” where towers would be built or helicopters would land, specifically for the south Thedford area. There also may be the need for a “pull-site” on the Welch Ranch, since the proposed line makes a change from north-south to east-west alignment near the southern most towers as approved by the FAA.

There was no opportunity for public comment on the FAA applications, which for the initial filings did not provide any “sponsor information” and for which details were only indicated once final determination was made, based upon a comparison of online documentation on different dates in late May and early June.

Any other applications for FAA consideration of transmission line placements for the r-project were not found at the agency website as of the first week of June. Each powerline tower needs a distinct “determination of no hazard” finding.

The r-project is still currently being evaluated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which has thus-far issued no environmental permits necessary for construction to be started. There has been no time indicated when the findings of this agency will be available for public consideration.

Land Impacts by NPPD Indicated by Corps of Engineers Document

The Nebraska Public Power District in mid-May applied for a nationwide permit from the Army Corps of Engineers that would allow them to place fill in wetlands along the corridor of the r-project.

This is a section of text from the letter submitted to the federal agency: “NPPD is applying for a Nationwide Permit (NWP) 12 (2017 issue) for Utility Line Discharges from the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to authorize the loss of less than 0.50 acre of waters of the United States (US) from fill.”

The document submitted to the Corps is titled “R-Project – Pre-Construction Notification – Application No. 2012-02858” as prepared by consultant company Power Engineers and with a date of May 10, 2017. This document was provided by the federal agency after three Freedom of Information Act requests.

What is very prominent was that NPPD did not just apply for a permit from the Corps, but they applied for a particular type of permit, and made certain that the indicated impact to wetlands was below the threshold that would have required an individual permit requiring a public notice and allow public review.

A Problematic Application

Amidst the extensive information in the document, there are several items which are very problematic based upon a review of details.

The application is basically built upon a false premise that immediately becomes evident in Figure 1, showing the project location. This map differs from other maps showing the “final transmission line route” as given in other project review documents also issued in May, especially the draft environmental impact statement released by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Even the permit area map given as Figure 1 in the Habitat Restoration Plan portion of the document submitted to the Corps has an alignment different from what is shown in Figure 1 shown on previous pages.
The map given in the Corps documents has three obvious changes: 1) northeast Blaine county eastward of Highway 7 which shows a shift southward; 2) just west of Highway 183 in northern Loup county and in the vicinity of the Calamus river which shows a shift northward; and, 3) a slight southerly shift in northwest Garfield county on the south side of Carson lake.

Map indicating three instances of changes in the supposed "final route" for the proposed R-Project transmission line.

These changes have occurred despite the continued and repeated insistence by NPPD that the route is final, but this claim apparently applies only until the utility company decides to make changes to suit their purpose.

It needs to be indicated that NPPD cannot convey a definitive final route for the industrial powerline until NPPD has signed, legal agreements for any right-of-way for access. There are indications that there are few such signed easements, notably in Blaine and Thomas counties, where an evaluation was done by an advocate to prevent construction of the r-project industrial powerline.

This application conveys a tentative route that is a convoluted route of many changes here and there in directions to such an extreme that there is hardly ever any long length of straight-line alignment in comparison to other powerline alignments shown maps within the NPPD documentation.

The draft restoration management plan portion of the document indicates that there will be “temporary disturbance activities” in 1,042 acres within the permit zone and 465 acres outside the permit area. Each site will “require restoration efforts” as described in this plan. This extent of acres as being directly impacted according to the NPPD application includes both lowland and upland localities.

Placement of Fill in Wetlands

An essential component of the document is an evaluation of where fill will be placed. The only item for which jurisdictional fill is being considered is for the proposed monopoles where there is an indicated value of “0.001” acres of impact for each monopole structure. Though steel-lattice structures would be placed directly into in wetland areas and the aquifer, there is an exemption on any fill activity as the anchor screws have been legally defined as not being a type of fill. Most of indicated activity associated with permanent fill are denoted in a similar numeric factor of 0.000 extent.

There is an overall list of places where construction activity would take place within the multiple county area which the powerline would traverse. There are dozens of places that will require temporary fill, and which will exceed a minimally indicated more than 40 acres overall for dozens of miles – for which there is no indicated extent – of vehicular routes for items such as “overland travel access” or pull sites, or temporary work areas as well as fly yards. Pictures with the document indicate particular wetland places where impacts will occur.

There is no indication on the number of times that NPPD-associated vehicular traffic will traverse a particular route, as the number of times heavy equipment crosses a grassland or meadow, the impact will increase. What if it is a very wet season when construction crews want to travel to a particular tower site? There are times following extensive precipitation when wet meadows should not be traversed. The NPPD application does not consider such conditions. What if a big truck gets stuck in a meadow, and other big equipment is required to extract it from the wetland? This will result in a deep gouge into the ground, and not simply be a track across the land.

At four indicated places where culverts will be installed, the banks of the waterway will be altered to a configuration that will conform to the circular or oval shape of the metal culvert. Dirt will be placed within the waterway and atop the structure to allow vehicle travel. This is not a temporary disturbance.

The “temporary” designation for travel access is a not particularly considered in any specific manner by the document. Will NPPD will continue to traverse these routes for powerline maintenance and any emergency access? There is an obvious need of the utility company for regular, perhaps twice a year maintenance work. If a culvert is required for a construction route, it seems reasonable that this same construct will be needed for additional future and expected access.

There is nothing in the document submitted by NPPD that even considers the access necessary for the required continued maintenance and emergency access of powerline features. How will any utility company truck(s) traverse routes across the hills after a substantive snowfall exceeding 12 inches and perhaps with ongoing blizzard-like conditions? They will not be able to do any such thing. So rather than align the powerline along already established rights-of-way, they instead prefer to place the line where access will not be possible during severe winter weather, so any repairs will need to be delayed until some later time.

Since the r-project is not intended to provide a powerline for “local” customers, instead any outage might be locally irrelevant, but the overall power grid will be operating in a deficient manner. This situation does not conform with the intent of NPPD and the Southwest Power Pool to improve quality of service.

It needs to be noted that wetland delineation occurred only at places where the landowner allowed “right of entry” so any wetland evaluation is only partial since some property owners may have denied access to their property. There were three dates, primarily during the 2016 growing season, when field surveys were done by hired consultants.

There is a claim made that any “temporary fill” within wetlands will be removed following the completion of the powerline construction. The document indicates: “4) temporary fill will be removed in its entirety, and the affected area will be restored to its pre-construction condition including seeding wetlands with appropriate native hydrophytic species as needed; and 5) when temporary fills are placed in a wetland, a horizontal marker will be used to demarcate the existing ground elevation in order to restore the wetlands to pre-construction conditions.”

There is no indication of any effort by NPPD to conduct work in wet meadow areas during times of the year when the ground is frozen, which would reduce impacts. If the ground is frozen, perhaps the placement of fill would not be required as it would be hard ground traversed rather than a soft-ground water-saturated soil. NPPD has not considered this alternative.

There is no timeframe indicating when any temporary fill would be removed. This needs to precisely defined so that NPPD cannot simply wait years or until some time of their choosing.

It is impossible for any entity to restore each and every wetland to “pre-construction conditions.” Once a wetland is disturbed by being filled to some extent, and then when excavation occurs to remove the fill, it is forever altered. Only time will allow recovery, and this will be influenced the overall extent of alteration and by any artificial seeding.

Within the report, there is, of course, a section on “Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation” with one pertinent statement: “Restrict all construction vehicle movement outside the ROW to pre-designated access or public roads, and restrict the use of other roads or areas to emergency situations.”

This is a statement which is directly the opposite of what is shown in the NPPD document to develop new travel access routes for construction, many of which are outside the powerline right-of-way. This statement would seem to indicate that there will be no new access routes developed though NPPD will obviously create new travel routes through the hills to suit their needs.

Powerline Route Maps

A key section of the document provided to the Corps is Appendix B, the “Wetland Map Book” which comprises 81 images showing particular segments of the powerline route with land features shown in association with the powerline alignment and the proposed r-project access route within these counties: Lincoln (where two forested wetlands along the South Platte river will be cleared; these two locations are not indicated in the tabular fill summary because it is vegetative removal, not placement of fill. There is a similar situation at the North Platte river), Logan, Thomas, Blaine, Loup (with maps for ca. 20 sections of the proposed powerline route), Garfield (ca. 15 segments), Holt (ca. 12 segments) and Wheeler.
These are some example of the route maps indicating prominent land features. After looking at the “map book” time and time and time again, these maps conveys some of the most notable indications associated with the proposed powerline route and access routes as derived from some example computer screen captures from the document provided by the Corps.

Crossing the North Platte River. Note how the powerline alignment does not adhere to the westerly North Prairie Trace Road because there would not be a “pull-site” available at the western extent of the corridor and along a roadway, as such a place would be within the river, so instead the line will be placed through forested wetlands rather than along the road.	North Loup River northwest of Brewster.
Along Gracie Creek avenue. The dashed black lines indicate the proposed route. How will the topography will altered so that the immediate setting of the powerline tower is suitable for an industrial lattice tower. This is a situation all along this indicated segment of the proposed r-project.	Note the topography of this site for a powerline construct at the western end of Gracie Creek Avenue. It seems that NPPD will conform the site to make it suitable for a lattice tower, rather than conform their construct to the natural contours of the hills. The marker pictured - and others in the immediate vicinity - are nothing but trash on the land.
This location is on the Hawley Flats. The powerline pole will be placed directly west of the county road and within the wetland extent. Because of legal machinations, placing the steel-lattice tower within this wetland site, it is not considered to be sort of fill activity. Notice how the map is erroneous as it calls the road “Holly Flats” which is an obvious and notable error.	This is a photograph taken in April 2017 which shows a marker indicating the specific location of an industrial powerline tower. There are additional impacts due to the imposition of pull areas and work yards to the south.
Alignment shift at the south side of Carson lake in northwest Garfield county. The route of the proposed powerline could follow a county road westward of the lake, and then continue along the county road alignment rather than traverse overland through a lake setting and wetland meadows and other portions of a natural landscape.
Along Highway 11. There was an access route of a greater extent selected to avoid any crossing associated with Big Cedar creek.	Southward of Goose Lake WMA. At Highway 183 the utility company decided to move the live southward to an alignment where there is no access route, rather than make the effort to just have a straight-line alignment along county road 846.

Despite the extent of proposed access routes associated with the conveyed alignment of an industrial powerline, the details given to the Corps and other federal agencies are associated only with a proposed corridor. This document indicates that the potential impact is much greater because of ancillary routes of vehicular travel. Yet this has received only slight consideration via the ACE document. Every consideration needs to be given to the overall particulars, not just some chosen portion of an industrial construct. The details given represent a “false reality” which is not an overall reality accepted by residents of the Sand Hills.

Vegetative Restoration

Essential to any review of wetland conditions is an evaluation of the flora, and there are those details given in the permit application. Appendix E provides the “wetland determination data forms” as prepared for some sites along the project corridor.

Why is it that the species indicated to be used to reestablish the disturbed vegetation – based upon some report or another – do not include the species actually documented as growing at a several locales? Subtle nuances in plant growth represent centuries of adaptation yet NPPD prefers to use a few so-called “representative studies” to make decisions on what needs to be seeded, with there being an obvious focus only on some representative grassland species.

Representative species actually present on the east-west segment of the line include, for example, include these sorts of plants as indicated on many “Wetland Determination Data Form” reports prepared for site surveys, notably in the route along County Road 846 in southern Holt county and northern Wheeler county: Carex (sedges), different species of Juncus (rushes), Calamagrostis stricta (slimstem reedgrass), Ratibida columnifera (upright prairie coneflower), Verbena stricta (hoary verbena), Liatris aspera (a gayfeather species), Agrostris giganteum (= A. gigantea; a grass species), Eleocharis compressa (flatstem spikerush) at several sites, Trifolium pratense (red clover), Ambrosia psilostachya (Cuman ragweed), Phalaris arundinacea (reed canarygrass), Typha angustifolia (narrowleaf cattail), Distichlis spicata (inland saltgrass), Spartina pectinata (prairie cordgrass) and numerous other sorts of plants as documented during site surveys.

A claim conveyed in the NPPD document is that all restoration will be completed with a five-year timeframe, with monitoring of the restoration efforts. The document states: “A formal Effectiveness Monitoring Report will be submitted to USFWS only for Zone 1, because that is the area of the project under USFWS jurisdiction through the ITP. The annual report will be prepared following each late-summer monitoring session, which will include results from the effectiveness monitoring and document progress toward achieving the performance standards. If performance standards are met, the fifth annual report (end of five-year monitoring) will be the final report on restoration effectiveness. If performance standards are not met within the initial five-year monitoring period, adaptive management measures will be implemented and post-construction restoration effectiveness monitoring will be extended until the standards are met. Any data collected for Zone 2 will be kept by NPPD to document restoration success.”

It is not apparent how this information will be available for public consideration and that there would be any sort of review of efficacy.

The seeding mix indicated in the document submitted to the Corps does not represent the overall flora present and thus lacks any proper suitability in any indicated vegetative restoration. The species listed in the document are primarily focused on grass species, mostly ignoring forbs and other sorts of plants which exist in a naturally adapted vegetative setting.

Considering the Section 404 Evaluation

The pre-construction document received from the Corps after three Freedom of Information Act requests, comprises 45 pages and several appendices as prepared by Power Engineers for the utility company so it comprises a much greater extent of pages.

Due to the many problems with a permit request by NPPD, the application needs to be elevated to an individual permit where the public can review details in a timely manner and that there would also be a public hearing or two in the proposed project area, preferably Brewster and then Burwell. To do anything otherwise, would be an intentional decision that disregards the public and most notably ranch-country residents.

NPPD Forces Feds to Nix Attendance of FWS Official at Community Meeting

A phone call from a federal office in Washington D.C. prevented Robert Harms of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from attending a private meeting in Thedford on the afternoon of July 17, 2017.

Officials of the Nebraska Public Power District had learned of the meeting via an online posting, and called the Denver and Grand Island office of the federal agency, but were told by an agency head in Nebraska that the question and answer meeting was still a go, according to details provided by a meeting sponsor. Because of communication with an office in Washington, D.C., Harms received notice that he could not attend the meeting. It was conveyed that NPPD thought that it looked like Harms was “going behind their back” and made the FWS look biased.

Harms, from the Nebraska Field Office, had planned to answer questions regarding the R-Project. He was already in Thedford, when he received the notification to not attend, within the hour prior to the start of the meeting.

Prior to the start of the meeting, two NPPD representatives were sitting in a back corner of the meeting room of the venue. They were kindly asked to leave, initially balked as they were told to attend by some lawyer and then erroneously said that Mr. Harms would be present. Once told that it was a private meeting and they did not have reservations, they were escorted to the exit and it was made certain that they left, according to the hostess of the meeting. While the meeting was underway, an attendee that arrived a short time after it had started, saw two people in an NPPD truck driving around, taking pictures of parked vehicles and their license plates, she said.

Ranchland Community Gathering

Despite the lack of a guest that would have been greatly appreciated, the meeting continued with discussions on these key items:
* the Section 404 application made to the Army Corps of Engineers where NPPD has asked for a type of permit which does not address fill being placed in wetlands for the required long-term powerline and power-pole maintenance; they have also requested a permit that was prepared in a manner that would not allow public review, as associated with an individual permit. Information on this application was received three Freedom of Information Act requests. Any decision is still pending.
* change in r-project alignment: the alignment map in the ACE document does not match the alignment indicated in other draft documents that have recently been submitted for public review; there are obvious substantive changes.
* lack of legal agreements for many portions of the proposed powerline route as obvious due to the few easements filed in deed records of two counties which the powerline will traverse, notably Blaine county.
* NPPD and regulatory agencies undertaking an environmental review and other considerations for a project where the final route of the powerline is hypothetical due to the lack of legally-indicated easements.
* how is it that NPPD can identify itself as a “quasi-public” corporation; this company has even indicated that it is a public corporation or a political subdivision, according to documentation received via the FOIA request; an action item indicated at the meeting was to have the Nebraska Attorney General issue a finding that will provide a final answer as to the type of company designation for NPPD. It is impossible for NPPD to be a "political subdivision" as the term is applicable to incorporated villages, towns and cities.
* pending opportunity for further public comment on the draft environmental impact statement and other project documents, comprising about 1500 pages; additional weeks will be provided, based upon details which are expected to be issued this month in the Federal Register.
* matters regarding the legal statutes of the state of Nebraska Open Meetings Act, including how these statutes have recently been violated in association with public meetings on the r-project and wind turbine planning efforts in Cherry county.
* plans for ongoing activities to keep industrial powerlines and unwanted wind turbines from being placed in the sandhills, a place that is special for each person in the meeting, and for future generations, as stated multiple times by speakers. Cattleman Steve Moreland from Merriman put it very succinctly: “Just say no” to unwanted turbines and powerlines.

The private meeting was hosted by Dan and Barb Welch of the Brush Creek Ranch which is primarily west of Brownlee, with their south unit a short distance south of Thedford, along with great involvement from "members" of the advocacy group “Preserve the Sandhills.” More than 65 people attended, including Merriman, Valentine, Wood Lake, the Brownlee area, Brewster, Burwell, and Thomas County residents. There was also a representative or two from local planning boards or county commissioners that attended to hear the commentary.

There were many successful ranchers present, sitting on the chairs in the rooms. Their names could be mentioned individually, but that will not happen here because it was a community meeting where a bunch of special ranch country decided to splice out personal time during a busy summer season to be present at a meeting for common causes.

Lots of cowboys hats were upon the heads of cattlemen. There were boots a bit of distance above the floor spread about. The crowd was completely respectful. They listened. They learned because among those present are a few people which have spent multiple hours dealing with government, wind turbines and an industrial powerline. Most importantly, everyone, yes everyone was given a chance to speak. Everyone listened attentively in each instance.

The meeting was one more example of sand hill ranchland residents gathering to work towards conservation of their home place now as well as for their future generations.

Blaine county is now initiating efforts to develop zoning regulations, according to comments made at the meeting and details mentioned at the meeting of the Cherry county commissioners on July 11th. An initial meeting is pending.

Dozens of Geese Die at NPPD Powerline

On February 2, 2017 it became known that dozens of Snow Geese had collided with a 345 KV Nebraska Public Power District powerline near Edgar, southern Nebraska. Details were provided by Robert Harms, a biologist of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, that graciously provided details of this occurrence of wildbirds hitting a significant, industrial powerline. His comments became available via email, and he indicated that his comments could be presented to the public.

"The NPPD notified us by telephone that about 30 snow geese had collided with the 345 kV power line near Edgar, Nebraska on February 2, 2017. Apparently, the collisions occurred on February 1, 2017—the day before. I met with a NPPD biologist to inspect the site on the afternoon of February 2, 2017. The purpose of the site inspection was to determine how and why the collisions occurred and recommend modifications to the existing line (i.e., installation of bird flight diverters (BFDs)) to prevent the same situation from occurring in the future.

"A total of 95 dead snow geese and a few Ross’s geese were found under the power line in an overgrazed pasture. This likely underestimates the true number of birds that collided with NPPD’s power line. We have unconfirmed reports of injured birds that could no longer fly in the area but we did not find any during the site inspection. It’s likely that there were birds that collided with the line and could still fly, but died elsewhere. The birds laid dead under the line overnight—it’s possible that carcasses were carried off by coyotes and consumed elsewhere. All told — probably well over 100 birds died at this site due to collision with NPPD’s 345kV power line.

"An initial reaction during the site inspection was that the snow and Ross’s geese had been shot at as they fed in the cornfield, flushed, and then collided with the line. There were no signs of birds being shot—some dead birds had missing wings and heads and many had serrated stomach tissue and exposed entrails—this is not an indication of gunshots, but of collision. Additionally, I spoke with the landowner who indicated that she had heard no gunshots. I spent some time at the site to determine the circumstances that led to this large collision. The Edgar city sewage lagoon is located approximately 0.25-mile west and cornfield is located to the north. The wind was out of the northeast on February 1. In my mind, the most likely explanation is that a large flock of snow and Ross’s geese were roosting overnight on the sewage lagoon and departed early in the morning well before daylight as snow and Ross’s geese often do. As they departed, they flew into the wind (northeast) and collided with NPPD’s 345kV power line which is located about 0.25-mile east of the lagoons. The collisions likely occurred in low light conditions.

"I would characterize the area as intensive row crop irrigated agriculture with a few rainwater basin wetlands present; these are located west and north of Edgar. This general area of Nebraska experienced severe drought last fall—few rainwater basins held water then. Most of the basins are still dry—those with water have it because of an ice storm, then above normal temperatures in the area which resulted in melting and runoff with little infiltration over frozen ground about 3 weeks ago. All in all, the general area where the collision site is not the best habitat for migratory birds—it is likely that the sewage lagoon was only being used by the snow geese because it represents what little water is available at this time of year in this area given the drought situation.

"After discussion at the site, NPPD tentatively agreed to install bird flight diverters (BFD) on an approximately 1-mile long segment of the existing 345 kV line to minimize the risk of avian collisions in the future. This includes the segment of the power line that crosses immediately north of the sewage lagoon area. NPPD also agreed to install BFDs on a privately-owned rainwater basin wetland located approximately two miles west of Edgar."

Edgar is located in Clay county, Nebraska. The sewage lagoon is northeast of the town.

the industrial powerline where these geese died, is similar in features for the proposed powerline known was the R-Project, which is being proposed by NPPD across a vast swath of the sandhills.

Court Case Between Ranch and NPPD Decision in August

James E. Ducey. August 18, 2016. Decision on powerline placement between ranch and NPPD should be known by end of August. Grant County News 132(3): 18.

A decision on a case pitting a ranch owner in the central Sand Hills and the Nebraska Public Power District that wants to place an industrial-sized powerline on their property should be known by the end of August.

Dan and Barb Welch own the ranch which is notably unique for its features and management practices. They have not provided permission to NPPD to survey the alignment for a segment of the R-Project so the case went to court.

A hearing on Brush Creek Ranch LLC v. NPPD was held in Thomas County court on August 11th. Judge Donald E. Rowlands heard comments from attorney David Domina - representing the land owners - and Kila Johnson representing NPPD.

The particular point of contention is whether NPPD has access to the Welch ranch, based upon current applicable Nebraska legislation (statute section 76-702).

Judge Rowlands also asked two questions of the attorneys at the court hearing, said Craig Andresen a local correspondent:

1) Have core studies been done for the locations of the towers: the response was no, with no plans for any to be done

2) Would the transmission lines be used to transport electricity generated by wind turbines: the response was yes

An additional concern is that NPPD will not provide remuneration for any damages to landowner property, following placement of the powerline towers.

The hearing lasted about 60-70 minutes, said Craig Andresen, while presenting a summary of the hearing during a KSDZ and KDJL broadcast live from the Cherry County fair. Nearby in the exhibition building, members and supporters of the recently organized group, Preserve the Sandhills, were providing information to visitors and gathering signatures from county residents opposed to turbines and industrial powerlines.

It was noted that the R-project would continue, even if the case was decided in favor of Welch. The company would however, not be allowed to conduct any preconstruction survey.

Prior to the court hearing, about 150 people showed up to peaceably convey their opposition to the powerline proposal and wind turbines, said Carolyn Semin of Kilgore, treasurer of Preserve the Sandhills; president is Merrial Rhoades, a resident of southeast Cherry County.

“We walked around the courthouse carrying signs and banners,” Semin said, noting that people applauded when the Dan and Barb Welch arrived.

There would be “92 miles” of new roads required to provide vehicular access to R-Project construction and maintenance, Andresen indicated. There would also be the need for a “landing pad” every 10 miles where construction material would be placed, and which needs to be within the five mile limit of range for a helicopter that would be used to place the lattice towers for the powerline.

It was also noted that by using existing roadways, the cost of the project could be reduced by $92 million, Andresen said.

Domina encouraged people to pursue options on tower placement, he said.

“A pseudo-government company should not do surveys on private property,” Andresen said during an August 12th discussion with Jim Lambley, radio announcer.

At a luncheon after the hearing at Thedford, a number of people gathered to discuss turbines and powerlines, Semin said.

Volunteers also inserted an advocacy letter into an envelope, and readied them for a mailing to registered voters in Cherry, Blaine, Thomas, Hooker and Grant counties.

“I was pleased with the support shown for the Welch’s and for people to show-up in opposition to wind turbines and industrial powerlines in the sandhills,” Semin said. “People need to continue their active involvement."

Recently organized group, Preserve the Sandhills, providing information from their booth to visitors at the Cherry County Fair.

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

Public Disclosure Missing from NPPD

There is an obvious problem with the Nebraska Power Power District and public disclosure involving the r-project. The company has been and continues to issue edicts or proclamations with basic statements that do not indicate any facts from which decisions are being made.

Some of the most worrisome or egregious examples started when the project was announced and continued even as NPPD wants to encroach on private property.

When the project was first announced, there were three reasons given, yet there has never been any documentary evidence to provide proof of these needs.

Why did NPPD make certain that the line went close to Cherry county where the Cherry County Wind Energy Association wants to develop turbines on public property? Was NPPD aware of the proposed development site and thus wanted to make sure to provide a line nearby so the turbine facility could be developed for personal profit by the turbine farm developer and land-owners?

There was no documentation released on how the route alternative were originally selected.

There was no documentation released on how the final route was selected.

The company will refer to the public hearings where the bureaucrats mostly sat like stone, but they have released nothing in regards to an overall perspective and particulars of those public hearings. For example, of the people in attendance, how many actually spoke in favor of the project? What was indicated by additional written comments? What issues were indicated that perhaps NPPD failed to consider in choosing the final transmission line corridor?

These details should be properly evaluated and a open and unbiased report should be issued for the public to read and study. Yet the company has done no such thing.

NPPD should be sued for release of this information.

NPPD should explain why the route was moved for a few houses but could not be moved a short distance distance to avoid major impacts to three wetland complexes that are habitats for thousands of birds, including swans and threatened and endangered species.

NPPD has not published any details on the additional access routes through the hills where line construction would occur and then be used for eventual maintenance? This is a huge void, yet the company says nothing. No public disclosure here, either.

The public does not want NPPD to go ahead on the r-project until the environmental assessment being done by the Fish and Wildlife Service is finished. Yet an NPPD official says they feel "confident" they can avoid any concerns and proceed without waiting for the review to be completed. Since when is NPPD an environmental organization of any credibility, and how will they achieve this supposed course of action?

Since when has NPPD administrative staff taken the stance that what the FWS has to say doesn't make a difference.

Full speed ahead on the r-project. Perhaps these so-called leaders are expecting to vote themselves a bonus if the project is done according to the proposed schedule?

There seems to be something akin to a "backroom shyster" approach involved. "What we says is the way is has to be. Just believe us because we are right."

There might be considered the "ruling class" and peasants approach ... "you will just go along with what we say."

Or perhaps it might be that the administrative staff of NPPD simply feel they do not have to explain anything to the public in any thorough and suitable manner?

Something needs to be get rid of this sort of administrative perspective from a public utility company, that prefers to pay themselves exorbitant salaries for personal gain so they can destroy grasslands flora and fauna, and flout the concerns of private property owners.

The public is missing in the Nebraska Public Power District name because of their lack of full discourse through open and necessary communication, as required by Nebraska law.

The company should change their name to "Nebraska Administrative Power District."

A similar procedure would likely be used if and when this power line is extended through the sand hills westward from Thedford.

Gilded Frosting of a Corporate Cake

It's all about the dough. Mix the right ingredients to a proper consistency, let it rise and then cook a cake at the right temperature, then convey it as a treat which can hardly be denied. Any good recipe can be used again and again to someone's enjoyment. The size of the cake does not matter, because a cover of sweet frosting and showy glitter can be just so special.

There are the basic ingredients. For a chocolate cake, include cups of flour and sugar mixed together, then butter and cooking oil, and cocoa. Don't forget cold water when all are mixed together. These are the basic items given in a "Mom's Kitchen" cookbook of a certain familiarity.

Other items to include may be vanilla, salt and soda, mixed well by a suitable culinary machine. The entire batter needs to be well-mixed to suit the cake pan. Then cook the creation at 400^o for twenty minutes. Make sure it does not get overdone!

Once slightly cooled, carefully spread the frosting, covering the entire cake. Then sprinkle about some glitter for decorative reasons ... perhaps because someone decided that the cake just had to have highlights. Candles may be included to give some particular recognition.

These are necessities to bake a cake, once and again, with multiple other sorts of recipes prevalent. The routine is well known.

The result is usually so nice with its special adornments. Perhaps nearly everyone standing around the serving table sings a song of celebration. It may seem like a complete joy, though some nothing is said as they smile. Some have to wait to the candles to be lit and aflame to get involved. Within the last moments as the throng unites in a common cause, others agree. Blow out a candle and the frosting gets new attention.

Then there is the eating. Some people may grab a hearty piece of some size to eat, taking a big bite because that is the way it is. Maybe a lesser portion will suffice. Others might take just a tiny bit of the cake, with lesser frosting, just to be involved. A few folks completely avoid the edible treat, because of they have simply decided not to partake. They will still smile for the occasion to show an appreciation for effort.

Glitter, frosting and candles can be such useless things but as they are atop everything, getting the most attention, so are seemingly most important.

Overall it may be a fine celebration, with the underlying perspective unsaid. Some few understood that the many celebrating are very about being nice while others only applauded, just to be considerate.

How many years has this happened among so many families in Nebraska ... among how many households? This times may be done year after year. Another bunch of candles, and another burst where the frosting once again gets the most attention.

This analogy is meant to convey what happened with the recent pay raises for administrative bureaucrats at the Nebraska Public Power District, which got the largest individual pay raises. Utility customers paid the cost. Some of the customers have probably had a hard time to find the dollars for a monthly bill. Yet. The administrators get bigger and larger paychecks.

It is the workers — the hearty dough of any well made cake — which make the company run, yet the frosting at NPPD get the most attention and make the most from the monetary dole issued as paid for by rate-payers in Nebraska.

The cake is essential, not the frosting or glitter.

Comments to NPPD on R-Project

The r-project as proposed is not acceptable for many reasons. NPPD has not provided any documentation for the public to review in order to evaluate the proposed line corridor and how it was selected. NPPD has not given any public details indicating the need for such a high-capacity line. And it is not NPPDs role to subsidize private - for profit - turbine facilities in Cherry county, or elsewhere.

Also, the current corridor would be greatly detrimental to sandhills lands, along with its flora and fauna. The proposed corridor near Birdwood Creek is not acceptable due to the regular occurrence of the endanger whooping crane, trumpeter swans and a myriad of other fowl. There is no need to place a transmission line through the Carson Lake wetland complex and between lakes in the Chain Lake vicinity.

NPPD officials need to closely consider all comments and revise their plans accordingly. To not do so would be disingenuous. The environment and land heritage deserve as much attention as any monetary concerns.

NPPD Opinion Presented as News

A recent report and article by the Nebraska Radio Network presented opinions of the Nebraska Public Power District as news.

The article, available online, indicated that all Nebraskans will benefit from construction of the R-Project. A representative of the utility company was quoted as saying that construction of the line will ... "benefit all of our customers throughout the state."

There were no details given on the factual basis for this comment. It is simply the opinion of the corporation which is promoting the transmission line, and facilitating private — for profit — development of wind turbine facilities within the sandhills.

There is no known survey with results available for the public to consider, that might indicate the point-of-view of "all our customers" to determine if they would benefit? IF NPPD is going to make claims associated with the r-project, they need to provide the facts upon which they they are based.

The reality is that, based upon numerous comments given at several public hearings, the majority of speakers were opposed to the transmission line corridor, so they have obviously indicated that they would not benefit from the current r-project plans.

The primary focus of this article was not news and should be indicated to be an opinion piece. The reporter is doing a disservice to readers to present it otherwise.

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."

An Analysis of Proposed R-Project Corridor

An analysis of the proposed corridor for the r-project, the Nebraska Public Power District indicates the places and land features which will be altered by construction of the industrial powerline.

The proposed route shown raises many questions as to the rational for the chosen corridor. Why does the corridor follow a route of "greater impact" to grasslands and wetlands, for example? Why isn't every opportunity possible taken to follow current roadways rather than traversing undeveloped grasslands? Why are seemingly erratic changes made in the route.

NPPD has not made available any details on why the particular route was chosen and the factors considered in their decision. It is not possible to understand their reasoning for their preferred corridor. If the company is going to impose this industrial powerline on the region, they should provide details that justify their route selection to land-owners and others concerned about conserving unique sand hill resources.

Although this powerline is not welcomed by land-owners along the route and others, it is still valuable to undertake a detailed analysis. The following comments are based upon a review of available maps associated with the route (especially those available at www.nationalmap.gov) , starting at its western terminus at the Gerald Gentleman power plant near Sutherland.

Route Analysis

As the route heads northward from the east side of Sutherland Reservoir, it does follow a roadway until it reaches the north side of the North Platte River. A couple of mile northward, the roadway veers westward while the corridor continues northward along the west side of Birdwood creek for eight miles through an area of sandhills with only scattered ranch trails and no land development features.

An alternative evaluated but not selected could have routed the corridor 3.5 miles to the east.  Although this route does not follow the roadway present, towards the north land is agland with center-pivot irrigation systems.

An eastern route could follow along a roadway from three miles east of the reservoir to about four miles north of the North Platte River. At this point, the line could go directly east, crossing Highway 97 until it reaches Highway 83. This option is shown on the NPPD map, but was not selected.

This alternative would completely avoid any impacts to the grassland habitats west of Birdwood Creek and completely avoid placing a powerline over the west branch of this creek.

At Highway 83, the corridor could start 2.5 miles further to the south than the preferred route indicated.

The powerline should continue along Highway 83 to avoid impacts to outlying areas, though it will destroy any scenic views.

South of Thedford about 3.5 miles, the corridor suddenly shifts a mile eastward of the highway for two miles, then jogs eastward another one-half mile, apparently to avoid a hill.

This is no apparent reason that the corridor could not continue along Highway 83 to Highway 2, and then eastward to the present power-substation. Or even adjacent to the present powerline along the T21-22N R27W boundary.

Instead, there would be two distinct powerline corridors in this immediate vicinity.

The corridor of this other powerline, which is already present, goes diagonally to the northeast as it leaves Thedford, and continues for about ten miles until it goes into Cherry county.

For the r-project line, the route goes straight north for six miles and then straight east along a route through the sandhills where there are no roadways for numerous miles.

The proposed corridor would be be placed just south of Carson Lake (PEMF and PEMC wetlands) and other wetlands to its immediate south; which is one mile north of the county road visible at the bottom of the map graphic. (Information from www.nationalmap.gov)

Once again, the rational for not following the current corridor is not indicated.

There is the possibility that the proposed corridor was selected to so that the proposed Thedford wind facility would have to construct a lesser extent of powerline to connect to the new powerline. It would require about 4-5 miles with the preferred route, versus about twice this length if the alternative indicated here was utilized.

It seems enigmatic that the proposed Thedford wind-turbine facility and the proposed r-project line would have such a close conjunction.

The route continues along a county road one-half mile north of Purdum for 1.5 miles, and then continues eastward across the North Loup River and onward across sandhills ranchland.

Eventually in northern Blaine county, the corridor goes past an unnamed wetland, and then Goldman lake, and between this lake and others wetland a mile to the southward.

At 2.5 miles into Loup county, the route is moved a mile northward and follows this alignment throughout the county. This entire length is thorough sandhills grassland, and is immediately north of the Switzer, Morgan and Price ranches, which are the eastern core of the Greater Gracie Creek Important Bird Area. There are numerous wetland features in the vicinity of Gracie creek.

Upon reaching Garfield county, after a mile, the route is moved to one mile south of the county line. Within four miles the line would be built on the south side of Carson lake and between it and other wetlands to its immediate south.

The proposed corridor would be placed between the PEMF wetland at the bottom and the unnamed wetland along in the center of this combined aerial photograph and designated wetlands graphic.

There is a north-south county road 1.25 miles eastward of the Loup-Garfield counties boundary.

The corridor could follow this right-of-way to two miles south of the north Garfield county line and avoid the Carson lake wetland complex entirely; as well as other wetlands eastward near Highway 7. This would also provide easier access and avoid impact to sandhills grasslands.

By continuing the route along this alignment, the powerline would not split through the Rush lakebed — which still has wetlands — and the unnamed lake to its north. Both of these wetland locales are associated with nearby Chain Lake in Holt county.

The corridor continues straight when suddenly four miles west of the Garfield-Wheeler counties boundary, it is moved a mile northward.

There are no land features obvious on the maps to provide the reason for this shift.

The route should instead continue in a straight line until one mile east of the Wheeler county line. Starting two miles west of the county line, there is a county road which goes northward one mile, then eastward one mile to the county line. The route could then go northward another miles to the county road, and follow this route eastward, as proposed by NPPD.

Again, for some unknown reason, instead of following the roadway along the county boundary, at five miles west of the eastern boundary of Wheeler county, the corridor is shifted one-half mile to the north, so it goes into Holt county and continues through the middle of five land sections until the eastern terminus is reached at the current western transmission line along the Holt-Antelope counties boundary.

Where this shift occurs, the line would go through an undeveloped grassland area as shown on current aerial photographs. It would then go through the middle of several ag fields watered by center-pivot systems, and place the powerline just south of the Sehi reservoir, rather than one-half mile to the south. There are also several areas of timber along this corridor. There is much less woodland along the county road.

Once again, there is no apparent rational for this change in alignment.

Conclusion

The preferred route as designated by NPPD is not acceptable for many reasons, and especially due to some of the reasons indicated in this analysis. The route selection seems to be erratic at times and not done with sufficient attention to important environmental resources. The designated route should be withdrawn.

If NPPD insists on constructing the r-project, they need to have more people involved in the route selection, especially residents and others concerned with the fate of the sandhills and its resources.