APPENDIX B — RECORD OF CONSULTATION

December 15, 2006

Steve Anschutz, Nebraska Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
203 West Second Street
Grand Island, NE 68801

Subject: Amendment Application for Central’s Land and Shoreline Management Plan Regarding Land Use Reclassifications at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir

Mr. Anschutz:

The Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District (“Central”) is proposing to amend its December 2002 Land and Shoreline Management Plan (“LSMP”) regarding land use classifications for some properties at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir. Enclosed for your review and comment are three sets of Central’s 12/14/2006 Draft Amendment Application for the December 2002 Land and Shoreline Management Plan Regarding Land Use Classifications at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir (“Amendment Application”). Please distribute these within your agency as you deem appropriate. The Amendment Application is also available on Central’s web site at www.cnppid.com.

We can discuss this Amendment Application as part of our meeting on December 21, 2006 in Grand Island, Nebraska.

Any comments are welcome. In particular, I would appreciate you consideration of the following during your review: (1) the appropriateness of allowing the changes in land use classification in allowing new private access; (2) the appropriateness of the conditions/restrictions; and (3) any other recommendations or concerns you may have.

I would appreciate your comments in writing to me by January 18, 2007. If more time is needed, please let me know. Please contact me if you have any questions or need further information.

Sincerely,

/s/ Michael A. Drain, P.E.
Natural Resources Manager

rdw

Enclosures (3 sets)


December 15, 2006

Kirk Nelson, Assistant Director
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission PO Box 30370
Lincoln, NE 68503-0370

Subject: Amendment Application for Central’s Land and Shoreline Management Plan Regarding Land Use Reclassifications at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir

Mr. Nelson:

The Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District (“Central”) is proposing to amend its December 2002 Land and Shoreline Management Plan (“LSMP”) regarding land use classifications for some properties at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir. Enclosed for your review and comment are three sets of Central’s 12/14/2006 Draft Amendment Application for the December 2002 Land and Shoreline Management Plan Regarding Land Use Classifications at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir (“Amendment Application”). Please distribute these within your agency as you deem appropriate. The Amendment Application is also available on Central’s web site at www.cnppid.com.

We can discuss this Amendment Application as part of our meeting on December 21, 2006 in Grand Island, Nebraska.

Any comments are welcome. In particular, I would appreciate you consideration of the following during your review: (1) the appropriateness of allowing the changes in land use classification in allowing new private access; (2) the appropriateness of the conditions/restrictions; and (3) any other recommendations or concerns you may have.

Also, please note that some of the lands being considered for reclassification are in the vicinity of the NGPC boat ramp and Wildlife Management Area at Plum Creek. I will be interested in discussing this with you and hearing your comments.

I would appreciate your comments in writing to me by January 18, 2007. If more time is needed, please let me know. Please contact me if you have any questions or need further information.

Sincerely,

/s/ Michael A. Drain, P.E.
Natural Resources Manager

rdw

Enclosures (3 sets)


December 15, 2006

Ellen Arms
Dawson County Court House
700 N Washington Street
Lexington NE 68850

Subject: Amendment Application for Central’s Land and Shoreline Management Plan Regarding Land Use Reclassifications at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir

Ms. Arms:

The Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District (“Central”) is proposing to amend its December 2002 Land and Shoreline Management Plan (“LSMP”) regarding land use classifications for some properties at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir. Attached for your review and comment is a copy of Central’s 12/14/2006 Draft Amendment Application for the December 2002 Land and Shoreline Management Plan Regarding Land Use Classifications at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir (“Amendment Application”). The Amendment Application is also available on Central’s web site at www.cnppid.com.

I would appreciate your comments, if any, in writing to me by January 18, 2007. If more time is needed, please let me know.

Please contact me if you have any questions or need further information.

Sincerely,

/s/ Michael A. Drain, P.E.
Natural Resources Manager

rdw

Attachment


December 15, 2006

Mary Gruber
Gosper County Court House
PO Box 52
Elwood, NE 68937-0052

Subject: Amendment Application for Central’s Land and Shoreline Management Plan Regarding Land Use Reclassifications at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir

Ms. Gruber:

The Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District (“Central”) is proposing to amend its December 2002 Land and Shoreline Management Plan (“LSMP”) regarding land use classifications for some properties at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir. Attached for your review and comment is a copy of Central’s 12/14/2006 Draft Amendment Application for the December 2002 Land and Shoreline Management Plan Regarding Land Use Classifications at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir (“Amendment Application”). The Amendment Application is also available on Central’s web site at www.cnppid.com.

I would appreciate your comments, if any, in writing to me by January 18, 2007. If more time is needed, please let me know.

Please contact me if you have any questions or need further information.

Sincerely,

/s/ Michael A. Drain, P.E.
Natural Resources Manager

rdw

Attachment


December 15, 2006

Greg Miller, Historian
Nebraska State Historical Society
PO Box 82554
Lincoln, NE 68501-2554

Subject: Amendment Application for Central’s Land and Shoreline Management Plan Regarding Land Use Reclassifications at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir

Mr. Miller:

The Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District (“Central”) is proposing to amend its December 2002 Land and Shoreline Management Plan (“LSMP”) regarding land use classifications for some properties at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir. Attached for your review and comment is a copy of Central’s 12/14/2006 Draft Amendment Application for the December 2002 Land and Shoreline Management Plan Regarding Land Use Classifications at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir (“Amendment Application”). The Amendment Application is also available on Central’s web site at www.cnppid.com.

As you are aware, Central has previously had its FERC Project lands inventoried for cultural resources and none were identified at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir. Also, nothing in this Amendment Application changes any of the requirements of Central’s 2000 Cultural Resources Management Plan. Nonetheless, Central thought it would be appropriate to include the Nebraska State Historical Society (SHPO) in the agency consultation for this Amendment Application.

I would appreciate your comments, if any, in writing to me by January 18, 2007. If more time is needed, please let me know.

Please contact me if you have any questions or need further information.

Sincerely,

/s/ Michael A. Drain, P.E.
Natural Resources Manager

rdw

Attachment


December 15, 2006

John Moeschen, State Program Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
8901 S. 154 Street
Omaha, NE 68138

Subject: Amendment Application for Central’s Land and Shoreline Management Plan Regarding Land Use Reclassifications at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir

Mr. Moeschen:

The Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District (“Central”) is proposing to amend its December 2002 Land and Shoreline Management Plan (“LSMP”) regarding land use classifications for some properties at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir. Attached for your review and comment is a copy of Central’s 12/14/2006 Draft Amendment Application for the December 2002 Land and Shoreline Management Plan Regarding Land Use Classifications at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir (“Amendment Application”). The Amendment Application is also available on Central’s web site at www.cnppid.com.

I would appreciate your comments, if any, in writing to me by January 18, 2007. If more time is needed, please let me know.

Please contact me if you have any questions or need further information.

Sincerely,

/s/ Michael A. Drain, P.E.
Natural Resources Manager

rdw

Attachment


NEBRASKA STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY
1500 R STREET, P.O.BOX 82554, LINCOLN, NE 68501-2554
(402) 471-3270 Fax: (402) 471-3100 1-800-833-6747 www.nebraskahistory.org
Michael J. Smith, Director/CEO

7 January 2007

Michael A. Drain
Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation
P.O. Box 740
Holdrege, NE 68949-0740

Re: Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir Land Use
Dawson and Gosper Cos.
H.P. #0612-065-01

Dear Mr. Drain:

A review of our files indicates that the referenced project does not contain recorded historic resources. It is our opinion that no survey for unrecorded cultural resources will be required. Your undertaking, in our opinion, will have no effect for archaeological, architectural, or historic properties.

There is, however, always the possibility that previously unsuspected archaeological remains may be uncovered during the process of project construction. We therefore request that this office be notified immediately under such circumstances so that an evaluation of the remains may be made, along with recommendations for future action.

Sincerely,

/s/ Terry Steinacher
H.P. Archaeologist

Concurrence:
/s/ L. Robert Puschendorf
Deputy NeSHPO


Original Message
From: Frank Albrecht [mailto:Frank.Albrecht@ngpc.ne.gov]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 9:12 AM
To: Mike Drain
Cc: Steve Anschutz
Subject: Plum Creek– Land Use

Mike,

I’m writing to request an extension for our comments regarding Land Use Reclassifications at Plum Creek Reservoir. At this time, it looks like we can get comments to by Jan. 26th.

Thanks,

Frank Albrecht
Assistant Division Administrator
Realty and Environmental Services Division
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
2200 N. 33rd St.
Lincoln, NE 68503
402-471-5422


Original Message
From: Steve_Anschutz@fws.gov [mailto:Steve_Anschutz@fws.gov]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 10:34 AM
To: mdrain@cnppid.com
Cc: Sharon_Whitmore@fws.gov; Frank.Albrecht@ngpc.ne.gov
Subject: Fw: Plum Creek– Land Use

Mike:

We’d also appreciate an extension (until January 26) for the submittal of our comments to you regarding the subject action item. Thanks.

Steve Anschutz
Nebraska Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
203 West Second Street
Grand Island, NE 68801
(308)382-6468. extension 12 (308)384-8835 FAX
E-mail: Steve anschutz@fws.gov


From: Mike Drain [mdrain@cnppid.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 1:31 PM
To: Frank.Albrecht@ngpc.ne.gov; ‘Steve Anschutz’
Cc: CNPPID – Wisner Rick
Subject: RE: Plum Creek– Land Use

Frank and Steve,

An extension of time for NGPC and USFWS to comment as requested is fine. – Mike

Michael A. Drain, P.E.
Natural Resources Manager
The Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District
415 Lincoln Street PO Box 740
Holdrege, NE 68949
phone: 308-995-8601 cell: 308-991-5832 e-mail: mdrain@cnppid.com


From: Mike Drain [mdrain@cnppid.com]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 4:04 PM
To: steve_anschutz@fws.gov; Frank Albrecht
Cc: Kirk Nelson; USFWS – Whitmore Sharon; CNPPID – Vetter Frank; CNPPID – Aden Kent; CNPPID -Wisner Rick
Subject: plum creek amendment application

Steve (USFWS) and Frank (NGPC),

Re: Public comments and possible changes to Plum Creek Reservoir amendment application

The period for public comment on the draft Plum Creek Reservoir amendment application ended on Jan 18, 2007. Some public comments received concerned the requirement that lot owners be required to share one dock per every two lots in Area 3. Based on these comments, Central is considering eliminating this requirement from the application. Please be aware that this we would still retain within the application a limitation of one watercraft per lot (described in the current draft as one dock serving two water craft per two lots), thus the number of watercraft permitted under the application would not change. There would, however, be an increase the potential total of access points (i.e. docks) along the shoreline. Please be aware that other provisions currently in place in our permitting procedures intended to encourage sharing of docks (limitations from side-lot-lines for unshared docks, splitting of fees for shared docks, and requirements to show neighbors are not interested in sharing docks as a condition of issuing a permit) would remain.

Central is interested in your comments, if any, on this potential change. If possible, such comments could be provided as part of the comments due January 26, 2007. It is hoped that by informing you of this potential change and seeking comment now, we could avoid having to go through a second round of consultations following the change.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to give me a call. Thanks.

– Mike

Michael A. Drain, P.E.
Natural Resources Manager
The Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District
415 Lincoln Street
PO Box 740
Holdrege, NE 68949
phone: 308-995-8601 cell: 308-991-5832 e-mail: mdrain@cnppid.com


Original Message
From: Frank Albrecht [mailto:Frank.Albrecht@ngpc.ne.gov]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 1:36 PM
To: Mike Drain
Cc: Bruce Sackett; Kristal Stoner; Jim Carney; jeff.hoffman@ngpc.ne.gov; Darrol Eichner; Dave Tunink; Steve Anschutz; sharon whitmore
Subject: Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir

Dear Mr. Drain:

Nebraska Game & Parks Commission staff members have reviewed the information in your letter dated December 15, 2006 regarding Land Use Reclassification at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir.

There are records of American burying beetle (Nicrohporous americanus) near the project area. The American burying beetle is a member of the carrion beetle family Silphidae. They are an important part of the nutrient cycling process as they recycle decaying materials back into the ecosystem. These beetles are nocturnal and search widely for carrion. This species is found in a variety of habitats including grassland prairie, forest edge, scrubland and wet-mesic areas such as wet meadows, streams, and wetlands. The causes for the decline of this species are complex and remain unresolved, but likely relate to habitat fragmentation, use of artificial lighting, and degradation of habitats that result in declines of small birds and mammals that the American burying beetle uses for reproduction purposes. In Nebraska, the American burying beetle has been observed from April 1 to October 29, with peak periods of activity extending from June through August.

The Commission requests that surveys for American burying beetle be completed in the areas that will be developed for residential purposes to determine the presence or absence of the beetle within the project boundary. These surveys should be completed during June or August. Surveys should be completed by a qualified biologist on nights without rain and when the temperature does not fall below 60° F. Contact the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission regarding more specifics of American burying beetle survey techniques. If an American burying beetle is found, contact the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission for current capture and relocation methods to “clear” the area of the beetles. Should construction on an area need to begin prior to June, we request that Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District (Central) condition permits to utilize sodium vapor, low-mast, directional lighting for any development within the project boundary to reduce the attraction of the American burying beetle to the development area. As development pressure increases on private ground surrounding the project boundary, the Commission encourages Central, to the best of its ability, to continue to implement light reduction for all property surrounding Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have any questions or need additional information, feel free to contact me at 402-471-5422.

Sincerely,

Frank Albrecht
Assistant Division Administrator
Realty and Environmental Services
Division Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
2200 N. 33rd St.
Lincoln, NE 68503
402-471-5422


United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Nebraska Field Office
203 West Second Street
Grand Island, Nebraska 68801

January 26, 2007

Michael A. Drain
Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District
415 Lincoln Street
P.O. Box 740
Holdrege, NE 68949

RE: Amendment Application for Central’s Land and Shoreline Management Plan Regarding Land Use Reclassification at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir

Dear Mr. Drain:

We have reviewed and considered the information provided in your December 15, 2006, letter and January 1, 2007, email regarding the draft Amendment Application for the December 2002 Land and Shoreline Management Plan Regarding Land Use Classifications and Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir (Amendment Application).

The Service does not object to the Amendment Application as described; however, the federally-listed American Burying Beetle (ABB) has been found in recent years near Plum Creek and along distribution lines near the project area. Therefore, we request the following:

a) A survey for the ABB be conducted in areas where development will occur or is expected to occur to determine presence or absence of the beetle within the project area. Surveys should also be done at nearby locations where the ABB is known to be present (e.g., Gallagher Canyon) as a control to account for annual changes in weather conditions and the influence of such conditions on the ABB. The surveys (site survey and control survey) should be done in June or August 2007. The survey shall follow the methods outlined in the Nebraska ABB Sampling protocol (attached).

b) Following completion of the surveys, the responsible party should prepare a written report that includes the results of the survey efforts and an assessment of habitat at the development site for the ABB. The report should be submitted to the Service and the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission for review and comment and, if necessary, further section 7 consultation and coordination as to the status of the ABB in the proposed project area and the need for conservation measures to avoid adverse affects to the species.

c) In the interim, until completion of a survey and habitat assessment for the ABB, any activities within the FERC Project Boundary that would result in ground disturbance should only occur at locations where there has been soil disturbance in the past five years. In addition, sodium vapor, low-mast, directional lighting should be used to reduce the potential for attracting ABB to the development area.

Aside from conducting the aforementioned ABB survey(s), the Service recommends that Central encourage landowners developing their properties in and around the Plum Creek Reservoir to use light reduction on their properties to reduce the potential for attracting ABB into the development area.

We appreciate the opportunity to review and provide input on this project. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Martha Tacha within our office at (308) 382-6468, extension 16.

Sincerely,

/s/ Steve Anschutz
Nebraska Field Supervisor

Attachment

cc: NGPC, Lincoln, NE (Attn: Frank Albrecht)
NGPC; Lincoln, NE (Attn: Kristal Stoner)


The Nebraska American Burying Beetle Sampling Protocol

Carrion beetle trapping will be conducted with a modified version of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (1991) protocol, as described by Bedick et al. (2004). Adult carrion beetles will be captured by use of baited pitfall traps consisting of a five-gallon (18.92 Liter) white plastic bucket (diameter 28.5 cm). Bedick (1997) found a five-gallon bucket to be the most appropriate pitfall trap when sampling for N. americans because they provide a larger surface area for each beetle, better ventilation, and soil at the bottom of the bucket provides a place for beetles to escape from other carrion beetles.

All buckets will be washed using dish soap and thoroughly rinsed prior to being used as traps. All buckets will be buried in the ground, with approximately 4-5 cm of the bucket above ground level. Soil will be then built up around the bucket, creating a gradient from ground level upwards to the bucket rim. This will be done to limit the amount of water entering the buckets through runoff and splashing of water during rainfall events. Approximately 5-8 cm of moist soil will be placed in the bottom of the bucket, in order to give trapped carrion beetles room to burrow into the soil to avoid competitors, high temperatures and low moisture levels above the soil. To prevent rainfall from directly entering the bucket, a 30-cm plastic bucket lid will be placed on the top of the trap, supported by 2 or, more sticks ranging from 1.5-2.5 cm in diameter. Additional soil will be then placed on top of the bucket lids to add weight to the lid to reduce bait loss to vertebrate scavengers and prevent the lids from being moved by wind or small animals.

All traps will be baited with previously-frozen, 150-250 g laboratory rats (Rattus norvegicus — available from online dealers such as RodentPro.com). The rats will be aged in airtight containers for 3 to 7 days, depending on temperature and other weather conditions. In contrast to the standard protocol, the bait will be not placed into containers within the traps. With larger numbers of traps spread across a relatively large area, it is better to allow carrion beetles to feed on the bait, which also helps maintain moisture levels in the soil within the trap and reduces stress. This will be done to prevent loss of beetles to desiccation, which has been determined to be a potential mortality factor for Silphidae on hot mornings by Bedick (1997). Traps will be spaced at a minimum of 0.5 km between traps, although 1.0 km is better to ensure independence of traps. Traps will be set on the first trap day before 18:00 hours and checked every morning by 10:00 hours.

At each trap site, a GPS location and digital photograph will be taken to document the location of the trap and the characteristics of the site. All carrion beetles captured will be identified to species and N. americanus will be sexed by use of Ratcliffe (1996). All carrion beetle captures will be recorded, the pronotal width of each N. americanus will be measured, and americanus will be marked using a drop of Testors model paint placed on the posterior portion of one or both elytra. Captured N. americanus will be released as quickly as possible, at distances between up to 2 miles away from the trap of capture for capture-relocate uses. For surveying, beetles will be released 400-800 yards away, up or across the current wind direction. All captures of N. americanus will be recorded in the Natural Heritage’s Biological Conservation Database and into the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission’s GIS database for reference and analysis.


October 24, 2005

To: Owners of Land Adjacent to Plum Creek Canyon Lake (see list on page 2)
Subject: Land Use Reclassification under Central’s Land and Shoreline Management Plan

Pursuant to the December 2002 Land and Shoreline Management Plan (“LSMP”) of The Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District (“Central”) under its Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) Project No. 1417 License Article 421, the LSMP Land Use Classification for a particular property dictates what activities are allowable within the FERC Project boundary for that property. For example, a property must have a LSMP Land Use Classification of “Residential” in order for Central to permit boat docks or other Special Water Access Facilities (“SWAF”) such as pathways, walkways or similar facilities intended to serve one or more single-family type dwellings.

Central is considering a possible land use reclassification for some of the land at Plum Creek Canyon Lake, and is aware that some land owners around Plum Creek Canyon Lake may also desire to have the LSMP Land Use Classification for their property reclassified. You have been identified as a land owner adjacent to Plum Creek Canyon Lake who may have an interest in the reclassification process. Accordingly, you are invited to a meeting on November 3, 2005 (Thursday) at 7:00 PM at the Holiday Inn Express just north of the Lexington 1-80 interchange. The purpose of the meeting is for Central staff to explain the land use reclassification process and the issues that may arise from this process, and to initiate discussions with individual land owners regarding your interest in this process.

If you have any questions concerning the meeting, please contact me at 308-995-8601 (phone), mdrain@cnppid.com (Email), or mail to the address below. Also, if you are interested in land use reclassification at Plum Creek Canyon Lake and cannot attend the meeting, please contact me so that we can discuss your situation.

Sincerely,

/s/ Michael A. Drain, P.E.
Natural Resources Manager

rdw

Land Owners:
Eunice Kiesel (with copy to Roland Anderson)
R & E Farms, Inc. – Elaine Geiger
Velma Romatzke Trust — Velma Romatzke (with copy to Glenny (Kermit) Lee)
Uebele Farm Ltd. — Bruce Hart, Legal (with copy to John Wahl)
Peterson Brothers
L. Jane & Carl Rohman
Mary Lundgren
Peter & Christie Dionisopoulos
David Miles
Dan Hutt
Ephriam & Barbara Hixson
Earl & Linda Nielsen
John & Janet Wightman


July 7, 2006

To: Owners of Land Adjacent to Plum Creek Canyon Lake (see list on page 2)
Subject: Land Use Reclassification under Central’s Land and Shoreline Management Plan

Pursuant to the December 2002 Land and Shoreline Management Plan (“LSMP”) of The Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District (“Central”) under its Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) Project No. 1417 License Article 421, the LSMP Land Use Classification for a particular property dictates what activities are allowable within the FERC Project boundary for that property. For example, a property must have a LSMP Land Use Classification of “Residential” in order for Central to permit boat docks or other Special Water Access Facilities (“SWAF”) such as pathways, walkways or similar facilities intended to serve one or more single-family type dwellings.

In 2005, Central initiated the LSMP Section 7.B.1 process to reclassify land uses at Plum Creek Canyon Lake to “Residential” for certain adjoining properties. This began with a meeting on November 3, 2005 with the landowners to gather information related to intentions for future development, and has been followed by individual contacts between Central staff and landowners over the last several months. As a result of these efforts, Central has made a preliminary determination that the following changes to land use classification at Plum Creek Canyon Lake in the LSMP are warranted:

(1) The Clarke & Mary Kay Nelson lot and the Peterson Brothers lot are misclassified in the LSMP and warrant reclassification as “Residential” without special conditions;

(2) Lands in the areas referred to generally as the Bellamy and Wightman subdivisions, and the Hutt/Reynolds lot warrant reclassification as “Residential,” with special conditions related to such things as future subdivision of lands, size and number of Special Water Access Facilities, and shoreline setbacks;

(3) Some other lands identified by landowners as having potential for future development, but for which development is not immediately anticipated, do not warrant reclassification at this time, but may have a “future development” overlay classification added for purpose of providing FERC and the public of where future development pressures may exist.

Landowners whose lands fall within item (2) above will be individually contacted in the near future to discuss the details of the special conditions and how the process may move forward so that reclassification may be completed as soon as possible. Though gathering information from all landowners took longer than expected, Central still anticipates that the reclassification process could be completed in 2006.

Please contact with me with questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Michael A. Drain, P.E.
Natural Resources Manager

rdw

Land Owners:
Eunice Kiesel (with copy to Roland Anderson)
R & E Farms, Inc. – Elaine Geiger
Velma Romatzke Trust – Velma Romatzke (with copy to Glenny (Kermit) Lee)
Uebele Farm Ltd. – Bruce Hart, Legal (with copy to John Wahl)
Peterson Brothers
L. Jane & Carl Rohman
Mary Lundgren
Peter & Christie Dionisopoulos
David Miles
Dan Hutt
Ephriam & Barbara Hixson
Earl & Linda Nielsen
John & Janet Wightman


December 15, 2006

Landowners and Tenants at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir

Subject: Amendment Application for Central’s Land and Shoreline Management Plan Regarding Land Use Reclassifications at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir

You are receiving this letter because you have been identified as a potential landowner or tenant at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir. If this is not the case, or you have no particular interest in this issue, please accept our apologies.

The Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District (“Central”) is proposing to amend its December 2002 Land and Shoreline Management Plan regarding land use classifications for some properties at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir. As part of this process, Central has prepared the 12/14/2006 Draft Amendment Application for the December 2002 Land and Shoreline Management Plan Regarding Land Use Classifications at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir (“Draft Amendment Application”) for review and comment.

This Draft Amendment Application is available for viewing at Central’s Holdrege Office or Gothenburg Office, and on the internet at www.cnppid.com. There will be a public meeting on the Draft Amendment Application on January 4, 2007 at 7:00 PM at the Holiday Jim Express in Lexington, Nebraska.

Public comments may be made at the meeting or in writing by January 18, 2007 to: CNPPID, Attn: Plum Creek Comments, PO Box 740, Holdrege, NE 68949-0740; or by email to: plumcreekcomments@cnppid.com.

Sincerely,

/s/ Michael A. Drain, P.E.
Natural Resources Manager

rdw


TRANSCRIPTION OF VERBAL COMMENTS
FROM PUBLIC MEETING HELD
AT HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS, LEXINGTON
January 4, 2007

Chuck Olsen from Johnson Lake, Convener of the JLDI appointed FERC response group and at our first JLDI meeting a person from Plum Creek rose and said we would like for you to comment or address one of the comments in a recent FERC inspection and that comment had to do with the “Licensee should encourage a movement to group docks at the project residential developments through shoreline management and permitting policies.” So I rise to speak in support of the proposal you have for individual group docks. I will submit to you then in writing what our FERC response group had to say in relation to individual docks as over against the possibility of community and group docks. We say, “Docks are not simply used to access boat lifts. They are fishing platforms, sunning decks and swimming entry points (so that swimmers do not have to crawl down over slippery rocks). Monitoring the safety of children on or swimming off group docks is much more difficult and risky than on docks positioned for clear view and adult supervision. Concentrated boat traffic and visual site obstruction would endanger swimmers and the safety of children. A dock with one or two shore stations located at the end of an “I” or “T” provides an unobstructed view of docks to monitor and control children’s activities. Combining docks between two leaseholds on a common property line has been practiced by some.” I am one of those who has practiced that for 40 years and we haven’t had any fights with the neighbor and everything has gone well and that has been encouraged where possible. I see that you have incorporated that as well. “Group docks may work well in a marina (we have two in reference to Johnson Lake) where concentrated boat traffic can be managed and the dock/shore station has a single purpose of storage and launching but it is impractical on the lake front where multiple uses are prevalent.” I am not an attorney but one of the persons on our group asked me to relay this information this evening. He mentioned that there is a Nebraska law which has to do with joint and several liability, meaning that if there is a group dock and folks are together on it and there was an accident that someone could sue the participant who had the deepest pockets in that situation and our group has a lot of concerns about liability and insurance with group docks, whereas it is pretty straight forward when a dock is in front of your own property about who assumes the liability and how is that insured if there are group docks. I know that the bias of FERC is for group docks at least it is the bias of the reviewer. I read the land and shoreline management plan to see if there is a preference there. I don’t see it unless I have missed something but we would like to reinforce your hand on making this application very much preferring that the option for the single docks in front of the single properties holds. When I read on your website about this you eliminated the word “per lot” and I thought whoa it looks like this is an advocacy for group docks but I see in the document you put in here tonight that you have included that. You might want to check what you have on your website because it implies there is going to be one dock for that whole development. With that I appreciate the opportunity to pass this on.

(From FERC Response Group of JLDI, Chuck Olson, 1-4-07)

4) “The licensee should encourage a movement to group docks at the project residential developments through shoreline management and permitting policies.”

> Docks are not simply used to access boat lifts. They are fishing platforms, sunning decks, and swimming entry points (so that swimmers do not have to crawl down on slippery rocks).

> Monitoring the safety of children on or swimming off of group docks is much more difficult and risky than on docks positioned for clear view and adult supervision! Concentrated boat traffic and visual sight obstruction would endanger swimmers and the safety of children. A dock with one or two shore stations located at the end on an “l” or “t” provides an unobstructed view of docks to monitor and control children’s activities.

> Combining docks between two lease holds on a common property line has been practiced by some and should be encouraged where possible.

> Group docks may work well in a marina (we have two) where concentrated boat traffic can be managed and the dock/shore station has the single purpose of storage and launching, but is impractical on the lake front where multiple uses are prevalent.


From: Mike Drain [mdrain@cnppid.com]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 8:18 AM
To: Wwchucko@aol.com
Cc: CNPPID – Bartruff DeAnna; CNPPID – Aden Kent; CNPPID – Wisner Rick Subject: Plum Creek

Chuck,

At our public meeting last Thursday, you had indicated that you thought there may be a discrepency between the paper draft and the website draft. We have compared the two drafts and are unable to find a discrepency. If possible, could you please let us know exactly where in the document that you think the error is located? Thanks.

– Mike

Michael A. Drain, P.E.
Natural Resources Manager
The Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District
415 Lincoln Street PO Box 740
Holdrege, NE 68949
phone: 308-995-8601
cell: 308-991-5832
e-mail: mdrain@cnppid.com


Original Message
From: Wwchucko@aol.com [mailto:Wwchucko@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 9:44 AM
To: mdrain@cnppid.com
Subject: Re: Plum Creek

Mike,

I double checked it also and could not find it. I must have misread the on line version. Thanks for checking.

Chuck


Original Message
From: tosborn@esu10.org [mailto:tosborn@esu10.org]
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 3:12 PM
To: plumcreekcomments@cnppid.com
Subject: Plum Creek Canyon

Dear CNPPD,

First I would like to thank you for accepting comments until January 18th, via email. I’m not sure that the Plum Creek residents fully understood the implications in the letter. We appreciate being notified and having the opportunity to speak our minds.

We (Kevin and I) are opposed to any changes in the rezoning of these properties.

I realize these people have a financial reason for wanting these changes.

Here are some concerns I have about the proposed rezoning of the Nelson/Peterson, Bellamy/Hutt and Wightman areas.

1. SAFETY: The Plum Creek Canyon is a very small area and is used by cabin owners and area residents that use the public boat ramp. It is a small area and all the people that use the lake must follow certain courtesies and rules to keep the lake safe. We are proud to say we do a good job of keeping the lake safe.

We know that these people would not want to have anyone get hurt just so they could have a dock or shore station. When using a boat, it is important to stay away from these structures to keep you, your skier and everyone safe.

IF these property owners are allowed to install docks and shore stations, that will cut down on the use able part of the lake. The safety of the boaters, skiers and swimmers will compromise. The boats and jet skies would have less room to maneuver, turn around and use the lake.

2. MONEY: The lots can still be sold, people can build on them and still use the lake without large docks and shore stations.

PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW any more structures in the water for individual cabins. We were told that no new structures would be allowed a few years ago, now the rules seem to change, because someone wants to make money. I would like to have a larger dock and a boat house, will residents get to add the structures they want? Where does this stop. The rules should stay as they are right now and not be changed just so someone can make money.

On the flip side do these people really want Plum Creek to become so congested that it would change to wakeless? Then they wouldn’t be able to sell their lots for as much.

The selling of these properties has raised the real estate taxes more than triple in recent years with new valuations. There are some residents that live at Plum Creek, that can not afford to continue paying higher property taxes.

I know these people have the right to sell their lots, but the preservation of what we have is more important than increasing or decreasing the value of these lots based on water structures. I guess it comes down to choosing between preserving safety and current usability of Plum Creek and the wants of these developers.

Thank you for your time.

Teresa and Kevin Osborn
Plum Creek Canyon
Dr 121 Lot #1


STEVE WINDRUM, P.C.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
P.O. Box 327 415 9th Street
Gothenburg, Nebraska 69138-0327
(308) 537-2321
Fax (308) 537-4487
E-mail swindrumecozadtelnet

Office Hours
8:30-12:00, 1:00-5:00
Mon.-Tues.-Thurs.-Fri.
8:30-12:00 Wed.

January 16, 2007

Mr. Michael Drain, P.E.
Natural Resources Supervisor
Central Nebraska Public Power & Irrigation District
415 Lincoln St.
P.O. Box 740
Holdrege, NE 68949-0740

RE: Proposed amendment application for the December, 2002 Land and Shoreline Management Plan regarding land use classifications at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir

Dear Mr. Drain:

The undersigned submits these comments with the proviso that nothing herein set forth shall be deemed a waiver or in the application or potential application of any principles of estoppel with respect to the litigation referred to hereafter, but rather are submitted on the principle of the fundamental fairness, equity, justice, and “good cause,” in regard to each, as a “stand alone” matter, but, in addition to that, in possible furtherance of settling the matter of the litigation referred to hereafter if such comments are implemented and ultimately adopted and approved. I write this letter on behalf of Ephriam Hixson and Barbara Hixson, trustees of the Hixson Trust, a property owner at Plum Creek Canyon. This letter is responsive to your proposed amendment application above referenced, and the procedure provided with respect to submitting written comments regarding that process. This letter is intended, then, to be such written comment on behalf of the co-trustees as lot owners as described. The following is in no particular order.

1. The proposed plan provides, at page 7, under “Area 3 — Wightman Subdivision,” that “SWAF would be limited to one dock serving no more than two watercraft per lots…” Given your definition of “SWAF” in the Land and Shoreline Management Plan, this would seem to prohibit by exclusion anything other than the one dock as so described, in other words, no shore stations would be allowed, no boat ramps would be allowed of a type that I refer to hereafter, etc. You stated during the meeting that it was not intended that any prohibition be made with respect to shore stations, per se, but that shore stations would be allowed, assuming all other appropriate requirements were met, but shore stations would not be allowed any more frequently than an adjacent or accompanying dock. Regardless of anything else, the plan needs to be altered, we feel, in accordance with the foregoing.

2. We understand the reasons and arguments advanced in favor of community docks. We understand that FERC in general has expressed an interest and an objective in having community docks wherever feasible. The operative word in the foregoing is “wherever feasible.” There may be certain areas on your system where, in fact, the need for community docks outweighs any or all other considerations in regard to their existence or lack thereof. This particular part of Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir, namely that of the Wightman Subdivision, is not one of such areas. Each lot as currently configured and part of the subdivision should be allowed its own dock for the following reasons (in addition to the litigation matter which is referred to hereafter):

2.1 A greater number of docks enhances shoreline protection because watercraft, and in particular jet skis, cannot be operated as close to the shoreline as would otherwise be the case if docks are located a significant distance from one another;

2.2 To the extent that young children or nonswimmers are users of the shoreline and the water thereat, the safety of such persons from injury or death from drowning, or otherwise, is enhanced by the closer the dock is to the adjacent property and/or residence, if there is a residence;

2.3 The presence of a single dock serving two lots has the potential of creating negative relations between adjacent owners who are required to use the same dock, and enhances the negative consequence of diffused responsibility and accountability in a way which yet further increases the risk of personal injury or property damage. The existence of the proposed dock arrangement is simply more “crowded.” On holiday weekends this could be significant in terms of conflicting potential uses by way of space available, between adjoining land owners. In addition, with a common dock to both, each individual property owner might feel that it is the other property owner’s responsibility to maintain same, or the like. Such an arrangement thereby decreases responsibility and accountability, with a correspondent potential increase in risk with respect to injury or property damage;

2.4 Regarding that part or portion of Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir upon which the Wightman Subdivision fronts, there would not be an excessive number of docks if a dock is allowed for each lot in the Wightman Subdivision. A dock per lot would be something in the order of four additional docks in this entire area, from that currently proposed. Reference is made here to remark that if the proposal which is contained in this amendment goes through, more than 50% of the shoreline of Plum Creek Reservoir in its entirety will have some water access to private land owners. That may be true, but is not true (as observable) with respect to that “pocket” which constitutes that portion of the Reservoir upon which Wightman Subdivision immediately fronts;

2.5 Emphasis was made throughout the entire meeting regarding those rights, benefits, and enjoyments attempted to be enhanced and preserved to the public generally regarding the area, water access, etc. For purposes of this comment, the writer assumes the primacy of the public’s interest in this regard. Even with that assumption, however, the question is posed, how do we know that having one dock every two lots, instead of one dock every lot, provides any enhancement of the public use, benefit, enjoyment, etc.? There were considerable comments at the meeting in respect to the evidence of the use by the public in respect to the area over the last several years, and the comment which sticks out in this writer’s mind is the littering and other placing of trash, debris, etc., by the “public,” in and around the public boat ramp which is at the facility already. It can be an equally strong assumption or presumption that the average member of the “public” using the Reservoir could not care less about whether or not there are four additional docks at the Wightman Subdivision, or not, as indulging in an assumption or presumption the other way;

2.6 Some consideration should be given to the legitimate expectations of those persons and individuals acquiring interests in adjoining real estate on the basis of their ability to directly access the water with the SWAFs applicable to their lots only, and this is separate and apart from the litigation issue which will be referred to hereafter.

3. I indicated that I thought any amendment should provide for what I will describe as a private boat ramp in respect to an individual lot which would enable the lot owner to remove the lot owner’s watercraft from the water by way of appropriate trailer or other mechanism to do that, thereby locating the watercraft when not in use entirely in an area which I will describe as terrestrial, meaning on the ramp, completely out of the water, in contrast to a watercraft tethered in the water at a dock, or in a shore station. I made the distinction of a boat ramp in this regard which is not available by way of access to a road, or the like, meaning a boat could not be launched from a vehicle and a trailer as is typically the case in launching a boat from a public boat ramp, but rather this ramp can only be accessed from the water side. I would submit the availability of removal of a watercraft from the water in this fashion would be beneficial to both the property owner and the public.

4. The Area 3 Wightman Subdivision paragraph should be changed to provide that the buildings or structures insofar as the footprint be restricted to the 50 foot setback, but that overhangs, eaves, etc., be not so restricted. There is no rational reason that the undersigned can fathom which, if there is a cantilevered walkway, for example, on the second floor of somebody’s house, that extends out 4′, that the entire structure has to be moved back an additional 4′ to account for this overhang. Indeed, it will be argued hereafter there is not any rational difference between the 25′ or 50′ in any event.

5. There is a 25′ setback in respect to the agreement between Central and Wightman in regard to his subdivision as a matter of agreement and record already. See reference hereafter to the paragraph on litigation. Request is now being made, in essence, to move this back from 25′ to 50′. The undersigned has been to the site on several occasions, and has been on the water at least once, also. It is hard to imagine any negative impact upon any member of the public in the public’s use of this water area, whether it be for fishing, swimming, water skiing, leisurely pleasure boating, etc., from an aesthetic or scenic or other standpoint in respect to the visual difference between a house being located back, say, 30′ from the high water mark, in contrast to an additional 20′. That is not to say that there are or may be certain areas on Central’s system at other parts of the canal, or at other lakes, where differences in horizontal setbacks from the water are not, in fact, significant from the standpoint of the topography, existence or lack thereof of structures which are grandfathered, whole subdivisions proposed to be developed in large areas, etc. But we are not talking about these other areas. We are talking about specific application to approximately 1500′ of shoreline.

6. Singling out for isolated consideration is the prohibition of any “attachments” to buildings, within the 50′, and decks and porches are given as an example. Porches are one thing. They are essentially three dimensional. Although decks can obviously be three dimensional from a casual observational standpoint, they can also be essentially two dimensional, either at grade level, or only slightly above grade level (e.g. one or two feet). There are improvements which are allowed within the 50′ to 25′ horizontal setback as described, that is, e.g. “… ground-level patio…”. Regarding the principle of essentially preserving whatever value is perceived in regard to the height of improvements, attachments to buildings which do not materially impact upon the height consideration to any significant extent should be allowed (for example, as mentioned, a deck extending from a house which is only one or two feet above the grade).

7. Supplementing paragraph 6, above, the regulations as proposed contemplate at least some “break” in the visual field, in a manner of speaking, on a vertical basis since reference is made to allowance of, in the 25′ in question, “retaining walls.”

8. The first sentence should be modified to read as follows: “Uses of project lands and water would be subject to LSMP, CRMP, permitting procedures, lease and permit conditions, etc., similar to other adjacent landowners, except where existing contract terms provide otherwise.”

9. Area 3 on Wightman’s Subdivision, under “Recommendation and Conditions,” should be modified to conform to the contractual terms as is set forth in the agreement between Central and John Wightman. As is a matter of public record, there is litigation currently in place in respect to, at least in part, the interpretation of the agreement just referenced as between Central and the Hixsons as co-trustees and owners of adjacent property, they being the plaintiffs in the action, Central being the defendant, lodged in the Gosper County District Court, but currently on appeal to the Nebraska Court of Appeals. Portions of these contract terms are at least apparently or arguably in contrast to the existing rules and regulations of Central insofar as the use by the adjacent landowner of shoreline area, both as currently configured and as is proposed in your amendment. Unless settled, this lawsuit and litigation will remain unresolved until determined by the Court of Appeals. It is equally noteworthy that a resolution by the Court of Appeals affirming the ruling of the District Court would not itself resolve these conflicting issues, terms, rights, etc. as between Central and the property owners at the Wightman Subdivision. In accordance with the Judge’s reason for his ruling in affirming Central’s motion for summary judgment regarding the matter, these property owners have not been “denied” the right to utilize the shoreline in the way that they believe they are entitled under the Wightman agreement, but they have just been “delayed” in that regard pending this amendment process. If the amendment as proposed is ultimately adopted, approved by FERC, etc., the issues involved in this litigation still remain, not only for these individual property owners, but everybody else at this Subdivision. The reduction or elimination of issues of a conflicting nature, which either are the matter or subject of litigation, or can be, has to be a legitimate objective in the fashioning of any procedure, rule, regulation, etc. The Land and Shoreline Management Plan as presently configured makes numerous references throughout to such terms and provisions thereof being subject to existing leases and other contractual arrangements. In that regard, the text of your “Area 3-Wightman Subdivision” should be modified in the following regard, that is, the third line should commence with “Except where the existing terms and provisions of existing contractual arrangements between Central and the land owners or their successors and privies provide otherwise, in which case such terms and provisions of any such contractual arrangement shall prevail, no buildings or attachments (such as decks or porches), would be constructed within 50 horizontal feet…(and then the rest of this paragraph provided).” It is noted that this introductory phrase may essentially emasculate the rest of the paragraph/section. Nevertheless, recognition should be given to existing contractual arrangements, other contractual arrangements which were entered into in legitimate reliance thereon, and the obvious benefit to all parties in the recognition of same and the avoidance of the costs involved to all interested parties when the agreements and conflicts require resolution in the litigation process.

Respectfully submitted

/s/ Steve Windrum
SW/lh


HART, DAWSON & SUDBECK; P. C., L.L.O.
Attorneys at Law
BRUCE L. HART
ROBERT D. DAWSON
KELLY L. SUDBECK
KIMBERLI D. DAWSON
121 EAST 8th STREET
P.O. BOX 229
COZAD, NEBRASKA 69130
(308) 784-4580
FAX (308) 784-4581

January 18, 2007

CNPPID
Attn: Plum Creek Comments
P.O. Box 740
Holdrege, NE 68949-0740

RE: Public Comments To Whom It May Concern:

The following comments regarding the proposed Amendment Application for the December 2002 Land and Shoreline Management Plan Regarding Land Use Classifications at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir (“the Amendment Application”) are submitted on behalf of the following adjacent landowners to Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir (“Plum Creek): Uebele Farm, LTD, Kermit and Glennis Lee and Velma Romatzke, Trustee (“the Landowners”).

The landowners are in favor of the residential reclassifications described in the Amendment Application as long as approval of the Amendment Application does not totally eliminate the chance for any future residential reclassification on Plum Creek.

Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District (“Central”) has determined that for the purposes of the Amendment Application Central will not consider residential reclassification for any tracts that are not either already subdivided or in the process of subdivision. The Landowners would request that at the very least, the cross-hatched areas set forth on the Attached Exhibit “A” be reclassified or noted with a “future development” overlay (as set forth in Michael A. Drain’s letter dated July 7, 2006, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit “B”) to indicate that residential development may be considered in the future on those tracts. Any such development would be accomplished with a minimal number of residences combined with open space undeveloped areas.

It was noted in the Amendment Application that the proposed reclassifications would result in approximately 52% of the Plum Creek shoreline being classified as residential. This figure can be deceiving. It should be noted that due to the unique nature of the Plum Creek shoreline, with its many small coves and high banks, that much less than 52% of the shoreline has been actually developed. In many of the “residential areas” much of the shoreline has been left the same as if no residential development had occurred. Plum Creek development has not been of the Johnson Lake variety where every inch of shoreline either has a sea wall or has been rip-rapped.

The Landowners believe that careful controlled residential development of Plum Creek (in conjunction with “open space areas”) is the best way to manage the reservoir for all wildlife and recreational uses, both public and private and to extend the useful life of the reservoir for the benefit of the public. The residential neighbors of a reservoir are usually the best stewards and caretakers of the reservoir and are in the best position to help control erosion, reckless boating and pollution. If residential development with large lots and ample shoreline per lot (such as in the Bellamy Subdivision) is utilized, the development can be a benefit to the reservoir, not a detriment. Simply stated, residential development of Plum Creek and public access and benefit to wildlife do not have to be mutually exclusive.

Very truly yours,

Bruce L. Hart

Ltr\cnppid landowner comments/jw