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.

Wind Turbines Metting Held at Hyannis

Information meeting on wind turbines held at Hyannis. August 25, 2016. Grant County News 132(4): 1, 3.

At least 75 citizens attended the informational meeting on wind turbines and powerlines held at the Winter Building on August 15th.

During two hours, guests from Cherry County discussed recent activities regarding the proposed placement of wind turbines southwest of Kilgore, and the expected construction of the R-Project powerline that would go from near Sutherland to Thedford and to its north, and then eastward.

The primary speakers were associated with the newly established Preserve the Sandhills group that is opposed to wind turbines and powerline construction. “This is a fight to save something precious ... our sandhills,” said member Carolyn Semin, a resident of Kilgore. “We hope people will get involved.”

Significant in the presentation were the comments by Kevin Willert, now living at Kennedy. He conveyed the reality of wind turbine development as experienced during many years where he formerly lived in southwest Minnesota. The first turbines were built in 1979. He conveyed a litany of problems associated with roads, turbine flicker, turbines on fire and other personal experiences.

“The sandhills are a focus due to wide open spaces in regards to setback and sound regulations,” he said. “I can’t imagine what turbine placement would do to the sandhills,” indicating that he has “grave concerns” and there are “lots of potential issues.”

Speaker Craig Andresen, of Valentine, noted that construction of a transmission line would involve a corridor across the land, access roads necessary for construction and maintenance and a construction yard every ten miles where equipment and material would be placed and within the flight distance for a helicopter being used to install towers.

Another prominent concern subsequent to powerline construction is insurance. Property owners would need to purchase “industrial insurance” for the powerline structures on their land, in case there is any damage to the towers.

In Grant county, decisions need to be made based upon zoning regulations and input from the public, said Dan Vinton, a county commissioner present at the meeting. “My job is to represent what people want to do.” Wind turbines and large powerlines are new issues for the county, he said. “We need feedback from people in order to move this issue along.”

There are indications of additional powerline developments subsequent to the R-Project. There would be more powerline built to the westward of Thedford, which would extend through Hooker and Grant counties then onward to western Nebraska. If the line would go directly westward, it might traverse the Sandhills National Natural Landmark which is an area southward from Hyannis.

Additional routes that are known would extend along Highway 83 in southern Cherry county, and also along Highway 97, north of Mullen, according to information on the Preserve the Sandhills facebook page.

There are multiple easements filed in Cherry county records that would allow the placement of wind turbines south of the Snake River just east of Highway 61, at the western extent of the North Loup River and other nearby land parcels. Among these records is an indication that Board of Educational Lands and Funds property has an agreement for turbine placement on their public property.

There is no current transmission line that could transport any generated electricity to the power grid.

Among those at the meeting were commissioner Dan White, and state senator Al Davis.

The public meeting occurred because of efforts by Gary and Glenda Phipps, residents of Cherry county, north of Whitman. “We need more meetings to discuss and understand the issues and to inform more people,” Gary Phipps said. “A lot of people were surprised to learn about the plans for placing wind turbines and powerline construction.”

The Grant County zoning board is expected to discuss turbine and powerline issues at their meeting in early September, Vinton said.

By the way, the cookies were a superb treat and utterly delicious, and certainly were an expression of the hospitality of the hills.

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.

False Premises - Wind Turbines in Nebraska

In a recent online commentary, Richard Branson, a world-wide entrepreneur, wrote that there is a need for improved energy development and use. He wrote of these options : "from advanced renewable fuels, to electric cars that leave their petrol-powered rivals behind, to more efficient, lower-cost solar cells and intelligent ways of heating and cooling buildings need adequate financial backing."

Prominent for being excluded from this essay on challenges facing the planet, was any mention of energy developed from wind turbines. There was a greater focus on positive energy options that can reduce the impact of energy development and demand.

Two obvious example that do just the opposite are tar-sands and turbine farms and associated infrastructure.

Consider wind turbines, and especially a local drive to place them within the sand hills.
This is requiring the construction of an industrial powerline 220 miles in length through the south-central portion of the region. Costing hundreds of $millions, it will also degrade the route by destroying native prairie habitat, establish a corridor of powerlines dangerous to migratory birds, ruin landscape views among the hills, and allow for further degradation elsewhere by providing a method to connect to the larger electrical grid.

Industrial wind turbine energy is not green energy. In addition to the afore-mentioned three unwanted impacts mentioned with powerlines, there are other reasons turbines should not be placed within the sandhills:

1). Any turbine farms will further destroy unique resources, and require construction of additional powerlines to connect to the grid line;

2). Wind turbines are not a reliable source of energy, but only a secondary source;

3). Wind turbines are known hazards to birds and bats;

4). public land may be destroyed forever for a dubious project(s); and,

5). claims of the environmental benefits of energy from wind turbines is questionable, as shown in many instances.

Why should the so-unique sandhills have industrial sites to develop energy imposed among a place which is the last, great American prairie. Nebraska is already is a surplus power production state? Why should the region be further industrialized so other places can have lights on all night at sports stadiums, or run huge promotional televisions all night, or have led-advertisements signs going 24-hours every day?

The amount of energy developed by a turbine farm in the sandhills — with a known amount lost during distribution — could be readily offset by conservation initiatives, or preferably by local solar.
Nebraska is going straight ahead on this industry that is only surviving to a large-extent due to tax-subsidies. The industry economic model is flawed because it cannot survive with the public having to give their hard-earned dollars so others may personally profit.

There are many preferable options to wind, especially local solar. Instead, Nebraskans prefer to have a pro-wind energy meeting in North Platte.

This meeting is not necessary. It will present topics with information readily available elsewhere, especially on the internet, according to the meeting brochure. How many people will burn expensive gas, or have to pay for lodging and meals when they could spend a short time online and learn so much more.

Whomever devised this agenda, seemed to have an obvious bias associated with where not if, regarding the construction of industrial wind turbine facilities. Even the titles for some of presentations reflect this perspective.

Missing in the mix, are results of any new findings, especially prairie-chickens and turbines in Brown county. Will there be an indication of the subsidy amount necessary to make turbine development profitable for a few business people and land-owners? The showing of a few pretty pictures at lunch does not really express the unique character and nuance of the region? How is the ruination of the features appreciated by past generations of sand hill residents, reflect a continuation of their heritage?

It will simply be a great opportunity for developers and proponents to learn about and discuss where they should focus on building turbine farms … a time for for-profit companies and private land-owners with dollar signs in their eyes to get someone else to provide details generated with so many others. It’s another example of a subsidy. And if anyone questions whether suitable consideration was given to the local resources, the developers and others can say they held this meeting.

It is a "faux" event!

R-Project an Apt Moniker for Pending Powerline

Identifying the pending powerline through the southern Sandhills as the "R-Project" is an appropriate moniker ... one which does not pertain to its approximate visual representation.

The name is more appropriate for rampant results which will ensue once construction occurs and the massive towers and drooping lines are imposed across the land. Do not doubt that the power transmission line won't get built. The entire process undertaken by the Nebraska Public Power District and the Southwest Power Pool has been focused upon a when, not if proposition.

This decision originated, as initially approved outside of Nebraska by agency bureaucrats associated with the regional power pool. NPPD agreed and continues to promote this project which will cost more than $300 million to construct.

There are a lot of r-words which pertain to this project which is a juggernaut which will not be stopped, despite any negative findings. It will ruin native habitats. It will destroy viewscapes. It will result in bird deaths. It will be a threat to threatened and/or endangered species. Etc.

NPPD has had public meetings. They have accepted public comment. The entire scenario is conveyed as being open an open process. the agency will convey some perspective to slight the concerns and indicate that their purposes are the most important facts to consider.

However, the agency has not even considered a no-build option!

Also of particular pertinence, currently, none of the information NPPD has garnered in association with this effort has been made available for public review and evaluation. Known details are whatever they want to convey.

What has been the involvement of state and federal environmental agencies? This status is unknown, and may be indicated in whatever environmental assessment that might be prepared and submitted to the public for scrutiny.

Presently, what are the details being considered to provide an acceptable transmission line corridor. These details are not known, not indicated in detail by the utility company. They listen and make a decision suited to their goal.

How might this powerline — which will undoubtedly be built— corridor be optimized in its placement to minimize overall impacts to the land? It would seem that a route associated with current features, such as along Highway 83 would work, but, based upon previous comments, NPPD would rather place a powerline elsewhere, because during a storm, two lines along a similar corridor would result in reduced service to customers.

And unforgettably, there has been nothing presented thus far as to how potential, and known impacts — based upon historic context — will be addressed.

The situation is considered as being an endeavor to "go green" as based upon some people's limited perspective, as very recently conveyed in more than one newspaper-published comment.

This juggernaut of ruination to sandhills' places will not be stopped. The result is one more, especially destructive insult, to the especially unique features of the region.

Powerline Purposes

The three primary reasons for the powerline to be built, according to NPPD details, are:

1). Enhance operation

In reviewing the project website and through direct communication with NPPD reps, it has yet to be determined how a secondary powerline will enhance operation. The agency already provides service which they would probably convey as being "completely satisfactory" since the company could not provide service which was not satisfactory. What sort of enhancement is required for customers within this NPPD service area, and what is the utility company perspective which forces this perspective? A large kilowatt transmission line will not provide power to local customers, unless it is indirectly. This is another aspect which has not been well explained in readily available public information among the sparse details available on the companies website.

2) Relive congestion on existing lines

The existing lines apparently transit enough power to serve NPPD customers within this portion of their service area. If it didn't there would have been a multitude of customer complaints. Removing the congestion is a misnomer for providing more lines to promote and subsidize local power development, which is beyond the amount currently required for use by Nebraska power customers.

Company officials have not indicated weather threats and the influence of weather hazards, nor potential prairie fires, on existing power lines so they need to spread the threat?

It seems that because of "events of nature" that NPPD is considering how to spread powerlines across a greater expanse, because if they were located within a common corridor, they are alarmed that a single event might cause some power outages. So they prefer to spread the damage over a greater expanse?

If NPPD wanted a perfect power providing record, perhaps they should provide each of there customers with an electrical generator and a ready source of propane to operate them, so that no customer has to ever be without power?

Things happen and the company can never address them all!

3) Provide opportunities for development of renewable energy projects

This R-Project is nothing more than an obvious effort to enhance opportunities to take advantage of government subsidies to develop turbine facilities which currently work well to put public money into the pockets of developers and land-owners. How many dollars of public money are being spent in this endeavor?

It's quite obvious that some people nearby the R-Project corridor are interested in this project. A new transmission line will provide them a new means of economic return. The web-site of the Cherry County wind energy association — men focused upon wind energy development — makes this especially obvious.

The environmental armageddon associated with this massive and lengthy power transmission line will occur too soon. Viewscapes will be lost. Habitats will be fragmented. Wildbird mortality will occur because of birds striking wires spread across the skies, since a new barrier will be imposed across former wildlands.

Eventually, additional public and private property will be decimated by placement of wind turbines and service roads. There will be additional powerlines built to connect these facilities to the power line grid.

Will the power produced will be sent to places outside Nebraska, where there is already a surplus of electricity generated beyond the needs of state businesses and residents.

The incessant, yet obviously biased demand for more wind energy, will be done to the detriment of so many resources important to Nebraskans, and to a greater extent in this case, to the exquisite features spread about the dunes and valleys of the unique Sand Hills.

This project is wrought with problems, yet it will certainly be built. The transmission line is but the first obvious destructive event. Additional destruction and degradation will subsequently occur.

Appreciate the hills now because there are more efforts underway to industrialize this special land.

Powerline Not Welcome in Sandhills

A project is now underway to construct a large, lengthy power transmission line through the central sand hills. Wind turbine facilities are expected to then be built. Both with alter features distinctive to the region, so herewith are some further considerations, with a focus on significant, transformative changes.

The R Project

Upon learning about the potential for an industrial transmission line across the grassy dunes and valleys of the region, an email was sent in November 2011 to an official of the Nebraska Public Power District, the project proponent.

The pertinent question was: When would there be an opportunity for public comment as to whether or not the line should be built?

The reply indicated my inquiry was "putting the cart before the horse," and that "various environmental agencies and NGOs are included along with landowners and public officials in reviewing" project plans. A public review would occur only after a decision regarding construction of the line.

This proposed project was initially approved by the NPPD board of directors. Construction approval was given January 31, 2012, by the board of directors of the Southwest Power Pool, an oversight group representing numerous utility companies in Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas.

This group, with one representative from NPPD, approved a 220-mile line that would start near at the NPPD power station by Sutherland, go northward, probably through McPherson and Hooker counties, onward into Cherry county, and eventually eastward through Brown and Rock counties, ending somewhere in Holt county.

None of the SPP directors who rubber-stamped the NPPD proposal, live in the Sand Hills.

An essential consideration is that NPPD has not, according to details conveyed by company representatives, project information as given on the company website, nor by other known publicly available information, indicated specific details as to why a new power line is needed.

One sentence in a NPPD press release issued in January, 2013, says the line would "enhance transmission system reliability" and "relieve congestion from existing lines within the transmission system."

There are no known, publicly available sources to independently evaluate current reliability or line load conditions. If improvements to enhance reliability are planned, does that indicate that the line(s) are not now reliable? This would be a dubious claim by a critic, but NPPD is including this rationale to promote construction of a new line.

A third point given in the utility company press release is that the power line would "provide opportunities for additional renewable energy generation."

This statement indicates that the powerline is also being built to facilitate construction of wind-turbine developments by for-profit companies that would then sell the energy to a local or regional utility.

Though there are no currently known project proposals amidst the central sandhills, there is an obvious intent to build them.

The Cherry County Wind Advisory Committee, for example, is actively working to facilitate turbine projects within the county. There is MET tower operating and map indications for a turbine development in northeast Arthur county, as previously reported in the Grant County News.

Building a regional transmission line would make it feasible for local turbine projects to construct a wind-turbine facility that would also likely include a connector line to link into the regional power-grid.

Without the proposed 345,000-volt R Project line, an option to "transport" turbine-generated power elsewhere, is not currently available.

There is also a dearth of information on who will bear the burden for the cost of constructing the R-Project line. Will customers of NPPD — which has indicated a project cost of about $290 million — bear the payment burden for a transmission line essential for profit-driven, wind-turbine developments.

This would seemingly mean that utility customers would pay for a powerline to allow private development and profit?

How Many Powerlines?

The expectation for the R-Project and its line of towers and wire across the landscape of the central Sandhills, would be just the most recent addition of this sort.

There is already a high-capacity NPPD line from east of North Platte, northward through central Logan County and by Stapleton, then to Thedford, continuing north and then east across the southeast corner of Cherry county, and onward to near the eastern boundary of Rock county and eventually northward to the Highway 20 corridor.

It is not possible to determine specifics associated with NPPD facilities, because, according to a NPPD official, they do not "give out maps of its transmission system due to security issues."

This creates a conundrum. Any sort of informed evaluation or consideration of current line routes, potential corridor alignments, line upgrades options and perhaps other options cannot be suitably done if pertinent details are not available.

There are also other powerlines present and pertinent in any considerations.

A "sub-transmission" line extends across the sandhills westward from near Stapleton to Tryon. It is apparently operated by Custer Public Power.

Another line, which also starts in the vicinity of the Gerald Gentleman power plant near Sutherland, goes westward along the north side of the Platte valley, and then northward, near the east side of Lake McConaughy, by Arthur and then to Hyannis. This line is apparently owned by Tri-State Generation, Colorado.

An alignment of towers and wires also occurs in the Mullen vicinity, and can be readily seen along the south side of Highway 2.

There is another high-line in the general vicinity southward of Highway 20, from the eastern extent of Cherry county, and onward a relatively short distance south of Highway 20, as especially prominent further westward, especially south of Nenzel.

View of an industrial powerline, south of Nenzel, Cherry county.

The prospective route for the R-Project does not conform to any of these alignments. NPPD is intent upon building a big line through the region, and proceeding upon a course of undeniable result.

Rather than following an already established route, especially in association with the eastern line alignment along the Logan-Thomas county route, NPPD has indicated a preference to establish an entirely new powerline corridor.

The utility company has not indicated any alternatives to the route associated with the R Project. Placing any new powerline along an already established corridor would have numerous benefits.

Example of an industrial powerline along Highway 92, Nebraska.

Line Impacts

NPPD officials convey that they meet with local residents to understand any particular concerns, in order to "minimize impacts" associated with company projects. Certainly, at public meetings, company officials listen attentively to anyone wanting to express their view.

Local residents and anyone else having a voice as to whether or not it should even be built is seemingly being ignored? Certainly the power company is going through the legally required processes to get public input and to consider environmental concerns. Public meetings do allow local residents to express their thoughts.

Asking for landowner input on obvious land features to avoid, how to minimize impacts, and other key items are a basic responsibility of the company. The perspective of NPPD is that local residents should respond to the companies request and intent.

Property owners along a potential utility route have no obligations to meet the demands of a company expecting to construct something across private property.

There is the obvious perspective that some comments may be significantly insignificant. Changes for a project may occur, but if an owner of a key tract of land doesn't want to allow utility construction on their property, their decision means nothing. NPPD has the right of eminent domain to allow encroaching upon any land necessary to construct a powerline, despite any objections by the property owner.

Entirely missing in any other discussion is the alternative of completely avoiding impacts, i.e., a no-construction option.

The proposed transmission line will mar open, expansive perspectives of seemingly endless rolling dunes and grasslands. These unique features are not present anywhere else in North America, nor anywhere else upon this world.

There will be a degradation of essential values, which have been most recently marred by the erection of communication and cellular towers, and other slights in past decades.

Incessant blinking lights are already a scourge among the dark sky horizon every night in the Sand Hills. During a personal saga to visit peak places in the western sand hills some years ago, so many blinks were obvious from atop numerous hilltops/dunes. An intent to appreciate and experience complete darkness in the region, wasn't possible.

Any industrial powerline would be a hazard for birds. Transmission lines are a well-documented threat and would be especially prominently in regards to two of the most distinctive species of the region.

Nearly one of five known deaths of Trumpeter Swans documented by one scientific study in the central U.S., were the result of a collision with a powerline.

These majestic swans are a prominent resident in Cherry county, especially during the breeding season, and in more localized places during winter months. The population is doing well, but a new powerline hazard could be detrimental and perhaps result in dead birds beneath the wires.

In regards to the endangered Whooping Crane, there are numerous, documented instances of their mortality due to their hitting a power line. Details are available through a simple web search. The projected route for the "R Project" would be centrally located within the well-known, Great Plains migratory corridor, for this distinctive species.

Where many sorts of migratory birds have, in the past, freely flown along, they now have to contend with subtle powerlines and proliferating wind turbines poking into the sky. Numerous turbine projects in South Dakota and Kansas are among the many new hazards.

Consider how Greater Prairie Chickens, distinctive and prevalent birds of the grasslands, would respond to a powerline through the middle of their living space? The Sand Hills are key habitat for survival of this distinctive species, as obvious by looking at maps of their current distribution. According to scientific research, "prairie hens" do not like "towering" structures, so any massive poles will diminish the habitat, and certainly make a difference as to where these birds eke out an existence.

Since there is a 220 mile corridor for the R-Project powerline, a vast expanse of land won't be suitable for these birds. Similar considerations apply to Sharp-tailed Grouse, though to a lesser extent as this species is more prevalent in the western extent of the Sand Hills.

A huge variety of other sorts of fowl — numbering in the few hundreds of species — occur in area lakes, marshes and meadows, and the incomparable grasslands. Any resident can step outside, early on a spring day and realize the nature of the situation.

The powerline, once built, will be an imposition upon what at one time, perhaps already long gone, was a distinct landscape with incomparable perspectives. Slowly but certainly, ongoing and seemingly unending transformations alter and degrade special characteristics of this place. If built, the R Project would mean the demise of more, formerly, wide-open spaces in the sand hills.

NPPD has not indicated anything that would be done to ensure an "open landscape" since their intent is to construct a powerline.

A 220-mile powerline, would be visible along an adjacent corridor, extending perhaps, and probably, depending upon terrain, ten miles in either opposing direction. This correlates to possibly more than 4000 square miles (220 x 20).

The entire extent of the Sand Hills is reportedly about 19,300 square miles.

Wind Turbines Questionable

Despite any claims to the contrary, wind turbines are a dubious source of alternative energy. Obvious, and well-documented reasons include:

1) Wind-turbine power is not an economically viable source of energy. U.S. taxpayers have paid billions of dollars to subsidize the development of wind turbine power. The current, legislatively approved, U.S. government subsidy is 2.2 cents for each kilowatt of electricity produced.

One report indicates the cost for wind energy development has been a $12.1 billion expense for the U.S. taxpayers for a ten-year period.

Yet, the subsidy continues. Legislation passed in December 2012 to address the so-called "fiscal cliff" situation included a provision to continue this subsidy. Without this, wind-turbine construction had been predicted to dramatically decline, and company lay-offs of associated employees had already occurred.

Land-owners can certainly personally benefit by leasing their property to turbine facility developers. They get a cash payment. The tax-paying public make this possible. So a property-owner in Cherry county, for example, that signs a contract to allow construction of a wind turbine facility upon their property, is taking advantage of a government subsidy, for their personal profit.

2). Any contribution of wind-turbine power in reducing CO2 emissions is also questionable. With the sporadic nature of wind-generated electricity — which reportedly operate effectively only 35-40% of the time — other power generation sources have to be kept online to provide electricity if the wind isn't blowing. Rather than operating at peak efficiency, these facilities are kept on standby status.

There are negative carbon impacts due to the manufacture and shipping of turbine structures, associated equipment, vehicle travel during the construction process with its road building, use of massive amounts of concrete which make it possible to erect turbines, and other ancillary work.

3). Social impacts of huge turbines in the sky include the potential loss of rural amenities including cultural heritage, landscape degradation, reduction in recreational values, and a potential reduction in property values.

4). There are potential health impacts due to the flicker of the turbine blades and associated noise, as indicated by several sources of information. Loss of sleep and an increased stress have been known to occur in the vicinity of industrial wind turbine facilities.

5). Wild spaces are being fragmented by wind turbine facilities. Turbine farms can be placed on disturbed ground — perhaps among an expanse of corn fields — but in places such as the sand hills, any sites which encroach upon native prairie grasslands, distinctive lakes or wetlands, could degrade the quality of thousands of acres of what had been quality habitat.

For example, the Grande Prairie Project proposed for construction northeast of O'Neill, would be built across 50,000 acres, according to the sparse details found online. It would have a currently unreported number of wind turbines. A feature the developer conveys — as apparently they might be the first development to do so — is that the energy generated would be sent outstate.

6). Birds and bats are killed by rotating blades of wind turbines. Tens of thousands of birds are estimated as dying due to this mortality source. The industry often expresses the expected mortality rate, with one estimate for grasslands indicating a rate of 2.19 birds/turbine/year.

Considering these impacts has become so onerous to the industry, that a coalition of developers requested that the Fish and Wildlife Service, through the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, provide a "general permit" that would allow the "incidental take" of endangered and threatened birds, including the whooping crane, least tern, piping plover and other significant species.

An associated "habitat conservation plan" is now being considered, as being facilitated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in response to a proposal by a consortium of 19 wind-energy companies. For the Great Plains Wind Energy HCP, the Nebraska area would extend from western Grant county, eastward to a line associated with Antelope, Butler and Jefferson counties. Overall the HCP would extend from the northern boundary of North Dakota, to the Texas coast, and include portions of nine states.

Any action undertaken by participants in this HCP would be voluntary, including any conservation efforts, according to details given on a FWS website.

The incidental take permit would be issued for a 45-year period. This plan is still being prepared, and is expected to undergo public comment during mid-2013.

Any death of single bird at a wind turbine, or many other things such as buildings, is an incidental take, according to MBTA provisions. Typically, the agency ignores the mortality.

At the Ainsworth Wind Energy Facility, built upon hilltops previously associated with a place known as Ikenburg Hill, studies paid for by NPPD, document that several sorts of sand hill birds are regularly killed by the turbines.

The study, done during when season when the facility had been newly built, indicated that about 150 birds, would be killed each year because of the 36 turbines at the facility. The approximate kill rate was 4.10 deaths, per year, per turbine. Prominent among the fourteen species recorded were the Horned Lark and Western Meadowlark.

Nationally, mortality is an estimated 440,000 birds yearly, which will increase as more turbines are placed across the landscape.

7). There will be an increase in traffic and resultant dust in association with turbine projects. Road and facility construction on sandy, wind-blown hilltops can result in blowouts and increased erosion on the relatively loose, and inherently unstable substrate. The current grass-cover often is not even sufficient to prevent this from occurring.

Direct impacts of these sorts, occur especially in association with ridge-tops and bluffs and stop-over and breeding sites such as wetlands.

8). Landscape degradation occurs as wind turbines are constructed. What was once a natural perspective is not the same with "constructs" prevalent on the horizon.

During a very recent conversation, someone who's family ranch is in western Custer county, said they could see turbines associated with the Broken Bow facility on the eastern skies, from a vantage point at the West Table, more than a dozen miles westward. Another resident in the same area, has also said that the blinking lights atop the turbines near Broken Bow are obvious from high points near their home in the western extent of the county.

Additional Considerations

Nebraska currently generates 1000 megawatts more power than is used within the state, according to details indicated by a Nebraska Power Association report issued in July 2012. This situation is indicated as continuing until at least 2024.

Energy development within Nebraska includes projects that will send any generated power elsewhere. Recent legislative action by the Nebraska legislature made this legally possible just a couple of years ago. The energy generated may not benefit local residents, but other consumers hundreds of miles distant. There are plans underway to construct huge power lines to transport plains-generated power to eastern markets.

There are other alternatives.

One obvious renewable energy source are solar panels installed where the power would be locally used. Consider how beneficial it would be if, for example, the city of Valentine or Hyannis, developed 50% of its power from solar panels on local rooftops.

What is certainly not known in discussions on this issue, are published commentary by Sandhillers. What are their thoughts and concerns associated with the special qualities of the region? Do residents and others interested in the future of the region prefer that outside entities continue to make significant, imposing decisions on the "fate" of this region, its communities, and its future?

There are obvious reasons for concern. An essential heritage, is disappearing, one not so subtle step at a time.

Will there be any open land and sky without an imposed powerline, cell tower, building, tree planting or other development, for future generations to enjoy? Where would someone, a couple of decades from now, go to view a vast landscape of grass moving with the wind, and to appreciate a natural land where the birds sing or fly freely across a cerulean sky?

Will there be such a setting in the future of the Nebraska Sand Hills?

This article was also issued in the Grant County News during the week of March 14, 2013.

---

This comment was received via email regarding the R-Project powerline. It is quite interesting the comments it expresses. There was no name given as to whom the author was.

"Just read your blog about NPPD "R-project" and associated powerlines in the Sand Hills on WildBirds webpage. WHY,, why, why dont you nature-lovers put your money where your crap mouth is ??????? I am a landowner along the R-project route. I welcome it. EVERY year i have to pay property tax, about $5000 on that rangeland. My home property tax is $444. I WELCOME any project that will help pay that $5000 yearly bill !!!! If you or your friends want to save the birds and "undisturbed natural rolling hills" , how about CONTRIBUTING some of your own money to me so i can pay that $5000?????? How about it Mr. Big Mouth ??? How much are you willing to send me ???? Am happy to provide a mailing address!"

Open Houses Held for Powerline Project

Plans for a new power-transmission line through the central and eastern sandhills are currently being considered, without any public decision on whether or not the line should be built.

The Nebraska Public Power District submitted a proposal stating that a new power transmission line was required, and indicated an approximate route. They got approval from the regional oversight authority, the Southwest Power Pool.

There was no public input involved in the decision.

Public hearings are now being held on the power-line project that will bring an industrial power line 220 miles long through the central and eastern Sand Hills. Known as the "R-Project," the moniker reflects a route which mimics the lower-case letter.

Its origin would be the Gerald Gentleman Station near Sutherland and would continue from there, basically northward into Cherry county, and then eastward to connect with another line near the boundary of Holt and Antelope county.

The currently unknown route would cross the Middle Loup River. Power lines would be strung across the North Loup River. In Cherry county it would go across a wetland area, designated as a "biologically unique landscape" by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission. It would then extend eastward across Brown and Rock counties, and through the Elkhorn River headwaters, also a unique landscape.

Starting on January 14th, and continuing to January 22nd, the Nebraska Public Power District held six open houses concerning their plans to erect a 345,000-volt transmission line.

The open houses are "being held to inform the public of the project and collect landowner feedback on the study area," according to a NPPD press release. Company officials were interested in having land-owners indicate, according to their press release, local land use, pivots, wells, planned facilities, and other potentially, pertinent information.

These sessions occurred, for example, at Tyron, Halsey, Mullen, Ainsworth and Chambers. These localities are in close proximity to the potential powerline route, according to NPPD.

An indicated purpose of the transmission line is to "provide opportunities for additional renewable energy generation," according to a NPPD press release.

This statement indicates that the transmission line would provide a high-capacity powerline suitable for local wind turbine facilities to connect to the power grid. Any "wind farms" built within the region, would, at this time, include an unknown number of wind turbines and the requisite power line connections.

There has never been an option presented as to whether the transmission line should be built. The only consideration is a decision of the particular route.

Additional open houses will occur, according to NPPD, along with a final public hearing.

NPPD has already indicated an approximate time schedule for construction of the approximately $290 million project.