Amendment of Land and Shoreline Management Plan

Kingsley Dam Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1417-198
Nebraska

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Office of Energy Projects
Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance
888 First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20426

July 2008

——————————————————————————–

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Office of Energy Projects
Division of Hydropower Administration and Compliance

Kingsley Dam Hydroelectric Project
FERC Project No. 1417-198—Nebraska

1. APPLICATION

1.1. Application Type: Amendment of Land and Shoreline Management Plan
1.2. Applicant: Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District
1.3. Water Body: Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir
1.4. Nearest City or Town: Lexington, Elwood
1.5. County and State: Dawson and Gosper Counties, Nebraska

2. BACKGROUND

2.1. Purpose for Action

This environmental assessment (EA) is being prepared to satisfy responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In this EA, the staff examine the environmental effects associated with the licensee’s proposal (proposed action), any identified action alternatives, and the no-action alternative.

3. PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

3.1. Project Location and Description

Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir (reservoir) is part of Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District’s (licensee) Kingsley Dam Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 1417). The reservoir is located within the Platte River Basin in Dawson and Gosper Counties, near the towns of Lexington and Elwood, Nebraska. The reservoir has a surface area of 252 acres and approximately 14 miles of shoreline.

3.2. Proposed Action

Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District proposes to change the classification of certain shoreline lands along Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir from open-space/pasture to residential. The proposed change would correct errors in the initial land classification, and accommodate the ongoing development of a pre-existing subdivision and new subdivision outside of the project boundary. Reclassification of the lands would allow residents of the adjacent subdivisions to apply for, and install if approved by the licensee, Special Water Access Facilities (access facilities) within the project boundary for the purpose of accessing the reservoir. The areas proposed for reclassification are located along the east and southeast shoreline and constitute 11,642 feet out of 74,800 total feet of shoreline. The amendment proposal was developed after consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, Dawson and Gosper Counties, and the public.

The licensee’s application groups the lands proposed for reclassification into three distinct areas: (1) the Nelson and Peterson lots; (2) the Bellamy and Hutt subdivisions; and (3) the Wightman subdivision. The Nelson and Peterson lots consist of two properties with existing development that were incorrectly classified during the survey of the shoreline for the project’s Land and Shoreline Management Plan (shoreline plan).(1) The Bellamy and Hutt subdivisions were already subdivided at the time of the shoreline plan classification, but only one house had been constructed resulting in the classification of the area as open-space with a future development overlay. The Wightman subdivision is located in an area which was previously occupied by a county road that has since been relocated, allowing for the subsequent subdivision of the area.

(1) See Order Modifying and Approving Land and Shoreline Management Plan, 101 FERC   62,105 (2002).  Pursuant to this order the licensee filed a revised Land and Shoreline Management Plan on January 6, 2003, that was accepted by the Commission on March 4, 2003.

If reclassified the areas would remain subject to the terms and conditions of the project license, the shoreline plan, Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP), permitting procedures, and lease and permit conditions. For residents of the Bellamy, Hutt, and Wightman subdivisions who desire access facilities, no construction or lawn establishment would be permitted within 50 horizontal feet of the normal high water mark, with the exception of approved access facilities and erosion control measures. Access facilities at the Bellamy and Hutt subdivision would be limited to facilities serving 2 watercrafts per lot, and future subdivision of the lots would not result in an increase in the number of access facilities or watercraft permitted. Access facilities at the Wightman subdivision would be limited to facilities accommodating one watercraft per lot, and a total of no more than 625 square feet of ground level patio, excavation or retaining walls would be permitted within 25 to 50 horizontal feet of the normal high water mark.

3.3 Action Alternatives

No action alternatives have been identified.

3.4 No-Action Alternative

Under the no-action alternative the licensee’s request to reclassify the lands would be denied, and the lands would remain under the current classification of open-space/pasture. This would preclude residents adjacent to those areas of the project boundary from applying for access facilities.

4. CONSULTATION AND COMMENTS

4.1 Comments and Interventions

In developing the amendment application, the licensee consulted with the NGPC, FWS, the Nebraska State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Dawson County, Gosper County, adjoining landowners, and the public. The Commission issued a public notice of the application on March 22, 2007, that set a deadline of April 23, 2007, for filing comments, motions to intervene, and protests. Responses were received from the SHPO, NGPC, FWS, U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance (Interior), Mr. Chuck Olsen, Mr. Kevin and Teresa Osborn (the Osborns), Uebele Farm, Ltd., Mr. Kermit and Glennis Lee (the Lees), Ms. Velma Romatzke, and Mr. Ephriam and Barbara Hixson (the Hixsons).

Interior had no comments on the application. The SHPO responded that there are no known historic resources present at the locations proposed for reclassification; therefore a cultural resources survey is not needed. The SHPO concluded that the proposed land classification would have no effect on cultural or historic resources, and requests that all land-disturbing activities cease if previously unknown cultural or historic resources are discovered during any construction activities.

Both the NGPC and FWS comment that the federally endangered American Burying Beetle (ABB) is known to occur near the areas proposed for reclassification, and request that the licensee conduct surveys for the ABB to determine its presence or absence, prepare a written report presenting the findings of the survey, and submit the report to the NGPC and FWS for their review, comments, and further consultation if needed. The NGPC requests that the licensee contact it if the ABB is found for the appropriate capture and relocation methods to remove all ABBs from the project area. The NGPC and FWS recommend that if any construction commences prior to June that low-mast, directional lighting be used within the project boundary to reduce the attraction of the ABB, and that the licensee encourage landowners outside the project boundary to use light reducing technologies.

The Osborns, landowners of a parcel adjacent to the reservoir, comment that they have concerns about the impacts of the proposed reclassification on public safety and property values. Specifically they are concerned that construction of additional docks on the lake would increase congestion and reduce the boatable portion of the lake, and state that the sale of the properties has increased real estate taxes. The Osborns allege that they were previously informed that no new structures would be approved for construction, and feel that it is unfair that newer residents would be allowed to install docks or access facilities.

The Uebele Farm, Ltd., Mr. Kermit and Glennis Lee, and Ms. Velma Romatzke (landowners of other properties along Plum Creek Reservoir) comment that they are in favor of the proposed reclassifications provided that approval of the proposal does not preclude additional lands from future reclassification. These landowners request that the licensee reclassify, or designate for future development, specific tracts of lands indicated on a map included with the landowners’ comments. They believe that controlled development of the project shoreline is the optimal way to manage the project shoreline.

The Hixsons, residents within the Wightman subdivision, in their comments filed on January 16, 2007, and April 20, 2007, state that the proposed amendment seems to prohibit any shoreline uses except for docks, that lot owners should each be allowed a private dock, that the 50-foot-setback requirement is overly restrictive and does not conform with the setback contained within the agreement for the Wightman subdivision, and that the licensee should permit the construction of decks and patios within 25 feet of the project shoreline. In support of their comment that each lot be allowed a private dock, the Hixsons state that the existence of more docks increases the level of shoreline protection by prohibiting watercraft from operating too close to the shoreline, increases the safety of children and swimmers along the shoreline, and avoids the potential for negative relations between lot owners. The Hixsons state that since users of the public boat ramp located adjacent to the Wightman subdivision litter the area, they would not object to additional docks on the lake, and that a dock per lot only amounts to four docks more than the original amendment proposal.(2)

(2) The draft amendment application included a condition requiring the sharing of one dock for every two lots in the Wightman subdivsion.  The licensee omitted this condition based on comments it received from the public.

In regard to the setback requirements proposed for the Wightman subdivision, the Hixsons comment that the 50 feet-setback should apply only to the footprint of the structure, not the eaves or cantilevered patios or walkways, and comment that decks and other structures that are near ground level should be allowed within 25 to 50 feet of the shoreline. Further, the Hixsons comment that the 50-foot-setback on the Wightman subdivision proposed in the licensee’s application does not conform to the 25-foot-setback included in the agreement for the Wightman subdivision. The Hixsons request that, if approved, the amendment include all the permissible shoreline improvements listed in the agreement for the Wightman subdivision, and request that the licensee clarify the language of the proposal to be consistent with the agreement for the Wightman subdivision.

4.2 Statutory Requirements

4.2.1. Endangered Species Act

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to ensure their actions are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of the critical habitat of such species.

4.2.2. National Historic Preservation Act

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies to manage cultural resources under their jurisdiction and authorizes the Secretary of the Department of the Interior to maintain the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies take into account the effect of the proposed undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The agency must afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, established under Title II of NHPA, a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertaking.

5. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

5.1. Description of Project Area

The reservoir is located along the Tri-County Supply Canal, between Gallagher Lake and Johnson Lake, in the Platte River Basin within the Rolling Plains and Breaks ecoregion. The primary use of the lands surrounding the reservoir is agriculture and pastureland with some residential development adjacent to the project boundary. Two areas on the south end of the reservoir are leased to the NGPC which operates them as public parks.

5.2. Proposed Action

In this section we discuss the effects of the proposed action on the environmental resources of the area. For each resource, we first describe the existing environment, and then discuss the environmental effects of the proposed action. Since the licensee’s proposal pertains only to project lands along Plum Creek Reservoir, our analysis focuses on the resources and potential impacts that may occur at the reservoir.

5.2.1. Geology and Soils

Affected Environment

The areas proposed for reclassification are located within the Rolling Plains and Breaks ecoregion which is characterized by deep, well-drained, silty soils that are moderately permeable and formed in loess on the uplands. The rolling plains are dissected with stream and river valleys and have broad, undulating to rolling hilltops (EPA 2001). Soils in the areas proposed for reclassification include Hall silt loam on 0 to 1 percent slopes, Holdredge silt loam on 0 to 1 percent slopes, and Uly-Coly silt loams on 15 to 30 percent slopes (NRCS, 2007). Erosion is prevalent along much of the reservoir’s shoreline.

The land adjacent to the reservoir is primarily pastures and hay land, with some areas of summer-fallow fields and small grains. Private residences are scattered around the reservoir, but are most concentrated along the central portion near the intersection of Plum Creek Canyon Drive 12l and Road 751. The shoreline of the reservoir is steeply sloped.

Environmental Effects of Proposed Action

The shoreline plan requires that lots that wish to acquire access facilities maintain a 50-foot horizontal setback from the shoreline for all structures, and states that deeper setbacks may be required depending on local conditions such as terrain, erosion, public use, and safety and operational considerations. These setbacks help to retain the environmental integrity of the reservoir and its shoreline by reducing erosion, filtering runoff, providing wildlife habitat, and lending to the aesthetic values of the area.

The licensee’s proposed amendment would allow for the addition of up to 17 access facilities along the project shoreline. The licensee’s proposal would require that a 50-foot buffer of natural vegetation be maintained along the Bellamy and Hutt subdivisions. These measures would limit the impact of any development occurring along the shoreline sections proposed for reclassification. Reclassification would also allow adjacent landowners to apply for permits to construct erosion control measures along the shoreline, which could result in additional protection of shoreline stability. The licensee’s proposal that a maximum of 625 square-feet of limited construction be allowed between 25 and 50 horizontal feet from the shoreline at the Wightman subdivision is not consistent with the conditions of the shoreline plan discussed above. For this reason, approval of the licensee’s proposal to reclassify the shoreline along the Wightman subdivision should strictly adhere to the setback requirements included in the approved shoreline plan.

Reclassification of the land adjacent to the Nelson and Peterson lots would not affect soils or geology at those locations. This is because the shoreline at adjacent to those areas have been historically used for access to the project waters, and the proposed reclassification at those locations is to correct the current erroneous classification as open-space.

5.2.2. Water Quality

Affected Environment

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) classifies the waters of Plum Creek Reservoir as fully supporting warm water aquatic life and fish consumption. However, the reservoir is not assessed with regard to agricultural water supply and primary contact recreation (EPA 2004).

Greater than 50 percent of the reservoir’s 14 miles of shoreline is currently undeveloped, and significant vegetated buffers still exist along much of the shoreline. While some of the riparian areas include substantial tree growth, much of the shoreline vegetation consists of mixed prairie grasses and agricultural crops.

Environmental Effects of Proposed Action

The licensee’s proposed amendment would allow for the addition of up to 17 access facilities along the project shoreline and the addition of an equal number of watercraft. Installation of any such facilities would have minor, short term impacts to water quality in the reservoir. Reclassification of the Nelson and Peterson lots would not result in any impacts to water quality since they are existing residences with access facilities along the shoreline. The reclassification of the shoreline along the Bellamy, Hutt, and Wightman subdivisions and the potential installation of access facilities in these areas would also not result in any long term water quality impacts. This is because any access facilities installed would likely be constructed off-site and floated into place, reducing the amount of disturbance to the lake bed and shoreline. Minor, localized, temporary increases in turbidity would be expected impacts associated with installation of the access facilities. Additionally, the licensee’s shoreline plan requires that landowners adjacent to the project that wish to install access facilities maintain a 50-foot setback from the shoreline for all lawn establishment and maintenance. This provision would ensure that the vegetated buffer along the shoreline remains intact and continues to stabilize the shoreline and function as a filter for run off.

5.2.3. Terrestrial and Wildlife Resources

Affected Environment

Dominant vegetation in the project area is typical of mixed grass prairie and consists of a mix of shortgrass and tallgrass prairie species. Shortgrass species include blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis) and buffalograss (Buchloe dactyloides), while highgrass species include big bluestem (Andropogon gerardii), Indiangrass (Sorghastrum nutans), switchgrass (Panicum virgatum), and Canada wild rye (Elymus canadensis). Woodlands occur primarily as riparian forests along watercourses, and have historically comprised less than one percent of the region’s land cover. Such riparian forests are typically dominated by eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides) and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and include smaller trees and shrubs such as red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), roughleaf dogwood (Cornus drummondii), false indigo (Baptisia australis), and sandbar willow (Salix interior) (NGPC 2005). Much of the reservoir shoreline proposed for reclassification is vegetated with grasses and forbs, and includes some portions predominately vegetated with small trees and shrubs.

Wildlife in the area surrounding the impoundment is typical of mixed prairie ecosystems and riparian habitats. Common mammal species include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), American beaver (Castor canadensis), river otter (Lontra canadensis), muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus), mink (Mustela vison), coyote (Canis latrans), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus). Greater than 350 species of resident and migratory birds have been documented in the mixed prairie ecosystem, of which 141 are known residents. Common resident birds include the Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), Dickcissel (Spiza americana), Western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus), Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus), Ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus), Field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), and Greater prairie chicken (Tympanuchus cupido). Additionally, several species of reptiles and amphibians occur in the region and include the western painted turtle (Chrysemys picta bellii), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon), prairie rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis), and western and red-sided garter snakes (Thamnophis spp.)(NGPC 2005).

Threatened and Endangered Species

Threatened and endangered animal species known to occur in the Dawson County include the ABB (Nicrophorus americanus), Whooping crane (Grus americana), Piping plover (Charadrius melodus), Least tern (Sterna antillarum), and Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) (FWS 2007). In response to the licensee’s pre-filing consultation the FWS and NGPC requested that the licensee conduct a survey to determine the presence or absence of the ABB in the areas proposed for reclassification.

The licensee filed its report on the survey results with the Commission on November 16, 2007. The licensee conducted the survey at four individual locations along the reservoir shoreline from June 22 through June 28, 2007. Prior to installing beetle traps, the licensee surveyed the reservoir shoreline using Dr. Wyatt Hoback’s Habitat Assessment Rating and identified potential habitat for the ABB.(3) Dr. Hoback’s rating system rates potential habitat as prime, good, fair, and poor. The surveyed area was the grassland buffer surrounding the reservoir and the identified sites were ranked as being poor habitat, but some habitat exists just south of the reservoir that could be classified as fair.

(3) Dr. Hoback is Associate Professor of Biology at the University of Nebraska-Kearney and is active in developing protocols and habitat assessment tools for the ABB in Nebraska.

During the six days over which the survey was conducted a total of 127 carrion beetles consisting of six different species were collected. No ABB specimens were collected. Given that the six species captured during the survey occur in the same habitat type as the ABB and are active under similar weather conditions, the licensee concluded that there are no ABB present at the locations proposed for reclassification (Central 2007). The licensee provided a copy of the survey report to the NGPC and FWS.

The licensee filed copies of the FWS and NGPC comments on January 28, 2008. The FWS comments that upon review of the survey and habitat assessment results it has determined that the areas proposed for reclassification are not suitable ABB habitat. The FWS concurs that the proposed project will not adversely affect federally listed species or designated critical habitat. The FWS requests that the licensee restricts the use of mercury vapor and ultraviolet lights on the reclassified properties, and reinitiate consultation if there are any changes to the proposal. The NGPC comments that it does not have any objections to the proposed reclassification.

Environmental Effects of Proposed Action

Approval of the licensee’s proposed reclassification would likely result in minor impacts to terrestrial resources and wildlife habitat along the reservoir shoreline adjacent to the Wightman, and Bellamy and Hutt subdivisions. The proposed reclassification would not result in any impacts to the shoreline along the Nelson and Peterson lots since those areas are currently occupied by access facilities and have been in use for some time. Reclassification of the shoreline areas from open-space to residential would allow for homeowners adjacent to the project boundary to apply to the licensee for access facilities along the shoreline abutting their properties. Installation of the access facilities and establishment of a footpath would reduce the amount and quality of available habitat at each location, and would increase the level of human presence, noise, and disturbance.

Impacts associated with the access facilities would be offset by the licensee’s shoreline plan requirement that a 50-foot horizontal setback from the shoreline for all non-access structures and facilities be maintained along properties that wish to request access facilities, and that no lawn establishment or maintenance may occur within the buffer (Central 2002). In addition, the licensee proposes to limit the number and capacity of access facilities at the Bellamy and Hutt subdivision and the Wightman subdivision to help reduce the impacts to wildlife resources and habitat at the reservoir. With regard to the Bellamy and Hutt subdivision, each adjacent property would be limited to one access facilities with a capacity of two watercrafts, and the Wightman subdivision would be limited to one watercraft per lot. These restrictions were determined based on the size of the lots and would ensure that reclassification shoreline would not result in a proliferation of access facilities or boats at the reservoir, and would retain as much of the existing shoreline characteristics.

Threatened and Endangered Species

As requested by the FWS and NGPC, the licensee conducted a survey for the ABB along the shoreline at the areas proposed for reclassification. Since the results of the licensee’s survey indicate that the ABB is not present in the areas proposed for reclassification at the reservoir, and the FWS and NGPC concur with these results, approval of the proposed reclassification will not affect the ABB or any other federally listed threatened or endangered species. The FWS’s request that the licensee restricts the use of mercury vapor and ultraviolet lights will ensure that any transient ABB are not affected by approval of the proposal. However, in the event that the licensee’s proposal is approved and the ABB is found to be present subsequent to such approval, the licensee should include as a condition of any permit or lease issued that if the ABB is found to exist in the reclassified areas all land clearing and ground disturbing activities cease immediately, and the licensee be contacted immediately. Upon notification the licensee should ensure that the FWS and NGPC are informed and consulted for a course of action.

5.2.4. Aquatic Resources

Affected Environment

Numerous native and introduced game and non-game species of fish are known to occur within the project area. Plum Creek reservoir is home to strong populations of game fish including channel catfish, black crappie, walleye, and white and striped bass. Other species that may occur there include largemouth bass, bluegill, carp, and northern pike. Most native fish species in the region include smaller minnows and chubs adapted to the dynamics of prairie stream environs (NGPC 2005).

The reservoir has abundant cove habitat along all portions of its shoreline. Currently, less than 50 percent of the reservoir shoreline is developed and consists of overhanging woody vegetation or prairie grasses. The reservoir is located along the Tri-County supply canal which connects it with the Midway and Gallagher reservoirs and Johnson Lake. This connectivity allows for unimpeded fish movement between the water bodies (NGPC 2006).

Environmental Effects of Proposed Action

Approval of the proposed shoreline reclassification at the Nelson and Peterson lots would have no affect on aquatic resources within the reservoir. The shoreline adjacent to the Nelson and Peterson lots has historically been used for residential access to project waters and includes access facilities at both locations. Therefore, reclassification of the shoreline would not result in any additional impacts because access facilities already exist there, and no additional construction would occur along the shoreline at those locations.

Approval of the proposed reclassification would have minimal affect on aquatic resources at the Wightman, and Bellamy and Hutt subdivisions. The lots comprising the Bellamy and Hutt subdivisions are large and would be limited to one access facilities per lot with a capacity of two watercraft, and the shoreline abutted by these areas does not include a significant number of coves. At the Wightman subdivision, the lots are small in size and would be limited to one access facilities per lot with a maximum capacity of one watercraft each. The reach of shoreline adjacent to the Wightman subdivision is relatively uniform and does not include any coves or significant riparian vegetation.

Any effects on aquatic resources at the Wightman, and Bellamy and Hutt subdivisions would be minimal and should be offset by the setback requirement in the licensee’s shoreline plan by ensuring overhanging vegetation and wood debris would remain undisturbed. Impacts associated with the reclassification would result from the installation of access facilities in these areas. Temporary, localized increases in turbidity would occur during access facilities installation, and small areas of littoral aquatic habitat would be altered. However, installation of access facilities could create habitat by providing shelter and shading the water.

5.2.5. Land Use and Aesthetics

Affected Environment:

Land use in the areas surrounding the reservoir is predominately for agricultural activities. The primary crops grown include corn, soybeans, and small grains, and some areas are used for hay land or pasture (UNL 2001). In the year 2000, the population of Dawson County was estimated at 24,365, with the majority of those residents living in the city of Lexington (U.S. Census 2000).

The land adjacent to the reservoir is primarily pastures and hay land, with some areas of summer-fallow fields and small grains. The NGPC leases from the licensee a small area of land on the south shore of the reservoir and provides a public boat ramp. A second public boat ramp operated by the NGPC is located on the north end of the reservoir near the inlet canal (Central 2002). Private residences are scattered around the reservoir, but are most concentrated along the central portion near the intersection of Plum Creek Canyon Drive 12l and Road 751.

The reservoir exhibits a pleasant aesthetic nature as much of its shoreline is undeveloped and generally abuts open fields or agricultural crops. Portions of the reservoir shoreline exhibit significant woody riparian plant growth, while others are primarily pasture and open field. Along the shoreline areas proposed for reclassification the dominant land cover is pasture or open field though some pockets of woody riparian vegetation exist. The riparian vegetation and low numbers of docks along the reservoir’s shoreline contributes to the aesthetic appeal.

Environmental Effects of Proposed Action

Approval of the proposed land reclassification would affect land use along the project shoreline by changing the classification of the subject lands. The change in the classification of project lands in those areas would allow adjacent landowners to apply to the licensee for permission to construct access facilities on the project lands adjacent to their property. This would result in the use of the lands changing from open space to reservoir access areas and boat docking locations.

Regardless of the approval or denial of the proposed land reclassification the aesthetic nature of the reservoir would change upon the construction of private residences outside the project boundary. Though these residences will be located outside of the project boundary, they will be visible from the reservoir and shoreline. The proposed reclassification would also change the aesthetic nature of the reservoir by allowing for the construction of additional access facilities along the shoreline. Such impacts would be greater at the Wightman Subdivision, because the lots are narrower than those at the Bellamy and Hutt Subdivision. Construction of access facilities would result in breaks in the riparian vegetation and the intrusion of man-made structures into a mostly natural landscape.

Though approval of the proposed reclassification would impact land use and aesthetic resources at the project, the licensee’s shoreline plan and lease conditions would help to offset these impacts. The shoreline plan includes the condition that adjacent landowners who wish to apply for access facilities must maintain a 50 feet-wide vegetative buffer from the shoreline. Further, with regard to the Bellamy and Hutt Subdivision, each lot has a substantial amount of waterfront and would be limited to one access facilities with a capacity of 2 watercrafts. This would allow for a more sporadic distribution of the access facilities along that portion of the shoreline, which would reduce the impact to the visual character of that area. At the Wightman subdivision the lots are significantly smaller and will be limited to one access facilities with a capacity of one watercraft per lot. In addition to these conditions, the licensee’s application states that no additional access facilities would be permitted at any of the areas proposed for reclassification if they are subdivided in the future. The licensee should include these conditions in any leases or permits it issues.

5.2.6. Recreation

Affected Environment

Many of the licensee’s project facilities are integral to the supply of recreation facilities in Nebraska. The most common activities undertaken around the project include picnicking, camping, swimming, boating, fishing, hunting, and observing wildlife (FERC 1998). Plum Creek Reservoir is a long and narrow lake frequented by water skiers (Central 2002). Picnicking, boating, water skiing, fishing, and swimming are the primary activities at the reservoir, but only approximately 10 percent of the shoreline is accessible to the public by land without trespassing (Central 2003). The NGPC leases one area on the south shore and one area on the north shore and operates public boat ramp facilities at those locations.

Environmental Effects of Proposed Action

Approval of the proposed reclassification could result in up to 17 access facilities with a combined capacity of 23 watercrafts being constructed along the reservoir shoreline. This would not affect hunting, hiking or shore fishing at the reservoir, but the addition of this number of access facilities could add up to 23 boaters to the reservoir on peak recreation weekends that could interfere with boaters of the general public that access the reservoir via the NGPC boat ramps. However, given the low level of shoreline development at the reservoir, it is unlikely that the addition of up to 23 watercraft would have a significant affect on boating densities or recreational

Approval of the proposed reclassification and subsequent addition of the access facilities would have minor impacts on water skiers. The additional access facilities would extend into the reservoir and restrict the amount of boatable area on the narrow reservoir. This would reduce turn around area and increase the possibility of collision with a dock. However, under the licensee’s shoreline plan, access facilities must not extend more than 150 feet in to the reservoir. The licensee should ensure that any constructed access facilities do not extend farther than 150 feet into the reservoir, and have reflectors or other devices to increase the visibility of the facility.

5.2.7. Historic and Cultural Resources

Affected Environment

A cultural resources inventory was conducted at the licensee’s project in 1991 to satisfy the Commissions responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The survey was conducted by Larson-Tibesar Associates on behalf of the licensee. The survey identified 18 archeological sites, 1 building, and 1 engineering system that are potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). None of the identified sites was located at Plum Creek Reservoir.

Environmental Effects of Proposed Action

In response to the licensee’s pre-filing consultation, the SHPO commented that the proposed reclassification would have no effect on historic properties. Since no identified cultural or historic resources are located at the reservoir, approval of the proposed reclassification would not affect historic or cultural resources. However, there is a possibility that previously unidentified archaeological remains or artifacts could be uncovered during installation of the access facilities. The licensee should include as a condition in any permits issued as a result of the proposed reclassification that if any previously unidentified historic, cultural, or archaeological resources are discovered in the future, all construction activities at the location must cease, and the licensee and SHPO should be contacted immediately.

5.3. Effect of No-Action Alternative

Under the no-action alternative, the proposed reclassification from open-space to residential of the shoreline at the Wightman, and Bellamy and Hutt Subdivisions, and the Neslon and Peterson lots would be denied. The landowners adjacent to the project boundary at these locations would be precluded from applying for access facilities along the shoreline, and the shoreline at these areas would remain in its present state.

6. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

According to the Council on Environmental Quality’s regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act, a cumulative effect is the effect on the environment that results from the incremental effect of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time to include hydropower and other land and water development activities.

Cumulative impacts that result from continued shoreline development include fragmentation and loss of fish habitat, and alteration of shoreline vegetation. Reduction in the amount of shoreline vegetation including trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants contributes to increase in sedimentation and turbidity, warmer water temperatures, and loss of wildlife habitat.

The licensee’s shoreline plan was designed to address such continual impacts associated with development and use of the project lands and waters. The shoreline plan outlines the permissible uses of project lands than can be requested by residents adjacent to the project. In conjunction with the shoreline plan the licensee developed shoreline classifications in order to control the type, amount, and location of development and uses of the project with respect to environmentally important and sensitive shoreline areas and resources.

Currently, the land surrounding the reservoir exhibits a rural character but has seen a recent increase in residential development. As more residential development occurs adjacent to the project boundary, more of the reservoir’s shoreline would likely be developed with private docks, walkways, and piers. In developing the application for reclassification, the licensee met with local landowners to discuss land use classification issues and determine which reclassifications are warranted. In addition to the areas proposed for reclassification, interest was expressed for the future reclassification of three other areas along the reservoir.

If the proposed reclassification is approved approximately 52 percent of the reservoir shoreline would be classified as residential. As is evident from the interest expressed in the reclassification of other areas at the reservoir, development pressure in the region is increasing and many landowners are subdividing their property holdings. Measures should be taken at the Plum Creek Reservoir to ensure that future development pressures do not result in all of the shoreline at the reservoir being reclassified or developed.

Measures included in the licensee’s shoreline plan, combined with other local, state, and Federal regulations and recommendations would help minimize cumulative impacts resulting from approval of the proposed reclassification. Such measures include shoreline setbacks, limitations on access facilities capacity, and complying with the conditions of all required permits.

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

We have examined the environmental effects of the proposed action, action alternative with dam removal, and the no-action alternative.

7.1. Proposed Action

Under the proposed action, approval of the licensee’s proposal to reclassify sections of the shoreline at Plum Creek Canyon Reservoir from open-space to residential would cause little disturbance to the geologic, terrestrial, aquatic, recreational, aesthetic, cultural, and historic properties of the project area. This is because the conditions imposed by the licensee’s shoreline plan, permits, and leases would adequately mitigate for impacts associated with the proposed reclassification. Such conditions include the setback requirement for adjacent landowners requesting access facilities, and constraints on access facilities size, capacity, and construction.

The licensee should be sure to include in any permits or leases issued for the reclassified areas the capacity and size restrictions of access facilities discussed in the application, and ensure that all permitted activities conform to the project’s shoreline plan, including the 50-foot setback for properties requesting access facilities. These conditions would help to ensure that impacts associated with the proposed reclassification are sufficiently mitigated and that no long-term effects on environmental resources result. The licensee should also include the recommendation of the SHPO that if any previously unidentified historic, cultural, or archaeological resources are discovered in the future, all construction activities at the location must cease, and the licensee and SHPO should be contacted immediately. Additionally, the licensee should include as a condition of any permit or lease issued that if the ABB is found to exist in the reclassified areas that all land clearing and ground-disturbing activities cease immediately, and the licensee be contacted immediately.

If the proposed reclassification is approved, approximately 52 percent of the reservoir’s 74,800 feet of shoreline would be classified as residential. As is evident from the interest expressed in the reclassification of other areas at the reservoir, development pressure in the region is increasing and many landowners are subdividing their property holdings. In consideration of this, if the licensee wishes to request additional variances to the shoreline plan or reclassification of the shoreline at Plum Creek Reservoir to allow for installation of private facilities, it may be required to develop a plan to mitigate for the loss of shoreline classified as open space.

7.2. No-Action Alternative

Under the no-action alternative the Commission would not approve the licensee’s proposal to reclassify shoreline areas at the reservoir from open-space to residential. This would preclude landowners adjacent to the project boundary from applying for and installing access facilities along the shoreline. The shoreline sections would remain classified as open-space, and adjacent landowners would not be subject to the setback requirements of the licensee’s shoreline plan that pertain to properties that request access facilities. This could result in landowners establishing and maintaining lawns up to the project boundary, which in many locations around the reservoir is located at the water’s edge, within the reservoir where significant erosion has occurred, or several feet from the water’s edge.

8. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT

Based on our analysis, approval of the licensee’s request to reclassify certain lands from open-space to residential at Plum Creek Reservoir would not constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.

9. LITERATURE CITED

Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District (Central)
Cultural Resources Management Plan. July 1999.

Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District (Central)
Land and Shoreline Management Plan. December 2002.

Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District (Central)
Licensed Hydropower Development Recreation Report. January 2003.

Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District (Central)
Survey for the Endangered American Burying Beetle in Dawson County, Nebraska, Plum Creek Reservoir Shoreline. November 2007.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
Final Environmental Impact Statement: Project No. 1417. July 1998.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Web Soil Survey. 2007.
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
Accessed: September 24, 2007.

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC)
Nebraska Natural Legacy Project. August 2005.
Available online at: http://www.ngpc.state.ne.us/wildlife/programs/legacy/review.asp
Accessed: November 16, 2007.

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission (NGPC)
Canyon Reservoirs: Midway, Gallagher & Plum Creek 2006 Fall Survey Summary. Autumn 2006.
Available online at: www.ngpc.state.ne.us/fishing/programs/sampling/2006/CanyonLakes.pdf
Accessed: November 19, 2007.

U.S. Census Bureau
2000 United States Census County Population Estimates. 2000.
Available online at: http://www.census.gov/popest/eval-estimates/county/2000C4-31.txt
Accessed November 28, 2007.

University of Nebraska at Lincoln (UNL)
Platte River Cooperative Hydrology Study (COHYST) Land Use Mapping. 2001.
Available online at: http://calmaps.unl.edu/cohyst/map/viewer.htm
Accessed: November 28, 2007.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Assessment Data for Nebraska, Middle Platte-Buffalo Watershed, 2004.
http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl/enviro_V4.wcontrol?p_id305b=NE-MP2-L0560_00
Accessed: November 16, 2007.

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Ecoregions of Kansas and Nebraska Map. 2001.
http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/ksne_eco.htm#Please%20note:
Accessed: September 24, 2007.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Mountain-Prairie Region
Nebraska Threatened and Endangered Species County Lists. December 2006.
Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/endspp/CountyLists/NEBRASKA.htm
Accessed: November 19, 2007.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species System (TESS). November 2007.
Available online at: http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/StateListing.do?status=listed&state=NE
Accessed: November 16, 2007.

10. PREPARERS

Christopher Yeakel, Environmental Biologist, Project Coordinator